Faculty Bibliography

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective Study. OBJECTIVE:This investigation examined matched cohorts of lumbar spinal fusion (LSF) patients undergoing robot-assisted and conventional LSF to compare risk of revision, 30-day readmission, 30-day complications, and postoperative opioid utilization. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA/BACKGROUND:Patient outcomes and complication rates associated with robot-assisted LSF compared to conventional fusion techniques are incompletely understood. METHODS:The PearlDiver Research Program (www.pearldiverinc.com) was used to identify patients undergoing primary LSF between 2011 and 2017. Patients receiving robot-assisted or conventional LSF were matched using key demographic and comorbidity variables. Indication for revision was also studied. Risk of revision, 30-day readmission, 30-day complications, and postoperative opioid utilization at 1 and 6 months was compared between the cohorts using multivariable logistic regression additionally controlling for age, sex, and Charlson Comorbidity Index. RESULTS:The percent of LSFs that were robot-assisted rose by 169% from 2011 to 2017, increasing linearly each year (p = 0.0007). Matching resulted in 2528 patients in each cohort for analysis. Robot-assisted LSF patients experienced higher risk of revision (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 2.35, P ≤ 0.0001), 30-day readmission (aOR = 1.39, P = 0.0002), and total 30-day complications (aOR = 1.50, P < 0.0001), specifically respiratory (aOR = 1.56, P = 0.0006), surgical site infection (aOR = 1.56, P = 0.0061), and implant-related complications (aOR = 1.74, P = 0.0038). The risk of revision due to infection after robot-assisted LSF was an estimated 4.5-fold higher (aOR = 4.46, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.95-12.04, P = 0.0011). Furthermore, robot-assisted LSF had increased risk of revision due to instrument failure (aOR = 1.64, 95% CI 1.05-2.58, P = 0.0300), and pseudarthrosis (aOR = 2.24, 95%CI = 1.32-3.95, P = 0.0037). A higher percentage of revisions were due to infection in robot-assisted LSF (19.0%) than in conventional LSF (9.2%) (P = 0.0408). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Robotic-assisted posterior LSF is independently associated with increased risk of revision surgery, infection, instrumentation complications, and postoperative opioid utilization compared to conventional fusion techniques. Further research is needed to investigate long-term postoperative outcomes following robot-assisted LSF. Spine surgeons should be cautious when considering immediate adoption of this emerging surgical technology. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:3.

OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the effect of a recent history of total hip arthroplasty (THA) on primary lumbar spine fusion (LSF) for concurrent hip and spine disease. METHODS:A total of 98,242 patient records from the PearlDiver Database were evaluated and divided into 3 cohorts: 1) patients with a history of LSF alone, 2) patients with a history of LSF for newly diagnosed lumbar disease after having a remote THA> 2 years previously, and 3) patients with a history of LSF after having recent THA <2 years before LSF who initially presented with concurrent hip and lumbar spine disease and underwent THA before LSF. Postoperative outcomes were assessed with multivariable logistic regression to determine the effect of THA on outcomes after LSF with respect to postoperative complications, LSF revision rates, and opioid use. RESULTS:Patients who had LSF after a recent THA had increased risk of deep venous thrombosis (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.39; P = 0.0191), neurologic complications (aOR, 1.81; P = 0.0459), prolonged opioid use (aOR, 1.22; P = 0.0032), and revision LSF (12.8%; P = 0.0004 vs. 9.9%; OR, 1.41; P < 0.0001; hazard ratio, 1.69; P < 0.0001). Patients who underwent LSF after a remote history of THA had no significant difference in DVT (4.2% vs. 2.6%, aOR, 1.31; P = 0.2190), neurologic complications (1.0% vs. 0.5%, aOR, 2.02; P = 0.1220), revision surgery (9.6% vs. 9.9%, aOR, 1.06; P = 0.7197), or prolonged opioid use (36.5% vs. 24.4%, aOR, 1.17; P = 0.1120). CONCLUSIONS:Patients who undergo LSF with a history of THA may be at increased risk of postoperative complications, revision LSF, and prolonged opioid use if their THA was performed for concurrent hip-spine disease in the recent past (<2 years).

BACKGROUND:Complication rates following occipitocervical and atlanto-axial fusion are high. While methods to fuse the upper cervical spine levels have evolved, complication rates and surgical survivorship of occipitocervical fusion versus atlanto-axial fusion are incompletely understood. METHODS:The PearlDiver Research Program (www.pearldiverinc.com) was used to identify patients undergoing primary occipitocervical or atlanto-axial fusion between 2007 and 2017. Incidence of each fusion procedure was studied across time. Multivariable logistic regression was used to compare 30-day readmission, 30-day medical complications, and post-operative opioid utilization at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months between cohorts, controlling for age, gender, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), and indication for surgery. Risk of revision was compared through Cox-proportional hazards modeling, Kaplan-Meier survival, and log-rank test. RESULTS:< 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS:Rates of occipitocervical and atlanto-axial fusion are rising, while complication and revision surgery rates remain high, with occipiticervical fusion leading to higher rates even after controlling for patient characteristics and surgical indication. Spine surgeons should be cautious when considering fusion of the occipitocervical levels if atlanto-axial fusion could be performed safely and provide adequate stabilization to treat the same pathology.

Spinal emergencies require prompt identification, management, and surgical referral (if needed) from first-line providers. Diagnostic delays from a failure to recognize emergency conditions can lead to adverse patient outcomes. The objective of this study was to understand the proficiency with which first-line providers can recognize and manage spinal conditions, particularly spinal emergencies. This was a cross-sectional analysis of 143 internal medicine, family medicine, emergency care, and neurology questionnaires collected at a single-site academic center. Participants were predominantly physicians (88.1%, n=126), with a smaller percentage of midlevel providers (11.9%, n=17). Only 35.0% (n=50) of respondents felt "very prepared" to handle spinal emergencies. Bivariate analyses revealed interdepartmental differences in clinical knowledge pertaining to the management of lumbar radiculopathy (P<.0001), epidural abscess (P=.0002), and cervical myelopathy (P<.0001). Following pairwise comparisons of interdepartmental differences, emergency medicine statistically outperformed internal medicine (P=.0007) and neurology (P<.0001) on initial management of lumbar radiculopathy, while also having markedly higher success in identifying and managing epidural abscess with respect to family medicine (P<.0001). The likelihood of appropriate initial treatment of cervical myelopathy was significantly higher for neurology than for emergency medicine (P<.0001). A minority of first-line providers reported being very prepared to handle spinal emergencies. Disparities exist between first-line provider specialties regarding clinical knowledge in managing and proficiently identifying emergent and nonemergent spinal conditions. Because appropriate handling of emergent spinal pathologies is essential to patient outcomes and optimal resource use, measures should be taken to further educate first-line providers regarding the spinal conditions they will be treating. [Orthopedics. 2020;43(4):e244-e250.].

Adult spinal deformity (ASD) is a challenging problem for spine surgeons given the high risk of complications, both medical and surgical.

OBJECTIVE:The purpose of this study was to compare differences in the outcomes of patients who undergo anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion (ACDF) with and without a history of shoulder arthroscopy. METHODS:The PearlDiver Patient Records Database (www.peardiverinc.com) from 2007 to 2017 was used to query patients by Current Procedural Terminology, isolating those who underwent ACDF with and without prior shoulder arthroscopy. Postoperative complications within 30 days of the index procedure, opioid use, and revision procedures were assessed for each cohort using ICD-9/10 and Current Procedural Terminology coding. RESULTS:A total of 39,969 ACDF patients were queried, of which 38,859 (97.2%) underwent ACDF alone and 1110 (2.8%) underwent ACDF with prior shoulder arthroscopy. ACDF revision rates were significantly greater in patients with prior shoulder arthroscopy compared with ACDF alone (5.8% vs. 3.6%, aOR = 1.64, P = 0.0002). Patients with prior shoulder arthroscopy were also significantly more likely to fill opioid prescriptions at 3 months (aOR 1.19, P = 0.02), 6 months (aOR 1.22, P = 0.01), and 12 months (aOR 1.18, P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS:Patients who undergo ACDF with a prior shoulder arthroscopy have significantly greater revision rates, respiratory complications, and prolonged opioid use compared with patients without prior shoulder arthroscopy. With efforts to limit narcotic use and the importance of maximizing patient satisfaction, this analysis improves on the surgeon's ability to set expectations and postoperative plans for patients undergoing ACDF who have a history of shoulder arthroscopy.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT:Since 2016, 35 of 50 US states have passed opioid-limiting laws. The impact on postoperative opioid prescribing and secondary outcomes following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) remains unknown. PURPOSE:To evaluate the effect of opioid-limiting regulations on postoperative opioid prescriptions, emergency department (ED) visits, unplanned readmissions, and reoperations following elective ACDF. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING:Retrospective review of prospectively-collected data. PATIENT SAMPLE:Two hundred and eleven patients (101 pre-law, 110 post-law) undergoing primary elective 1-3 level ACDF during specified pre-law (December 1st, 2015-June 30th, 2016) and post-law (June 1st, 2017-December 31st, 2017) study periods were evaluated. METHODS:Demographic, medical, surgical, clinical, and pharmacological data was collected from all patients. Total morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs) filled was compared at 30-day postoperative intervals, before and after stratification by preoperative opioid-tolerance. Thirty- and 90-day ED visit, readmission, and reoperation rates were calculated. Independent predictors of increased 30-day and chronic (>90 day) opioid utilization were evaluated. RESULTS:Demographic, medical, and surgical factors were similar pre-law versus post-law (all p>.05). Post-law, ACDF patients received fewer opioids in their first postoperative prescription (26.65 vs. 62.08 pills, p<.001; 202.23 vs. 549.18 MMEs, p<.001) and in their first 30 postoperative days (cumulative 30-day MMEs 444.14 vs. 877.87, p<.001). Furthermore, post-law reductions in cumulative 30-day MMEs were seen among both opioid-naïve (363.54 vs. 632.20 MMEs, p<.001) and opioid-tolerant (730.08 vs. 1,122.90 MMEs, p=.022) patient populations. Increased 30-day opioid utilization was associated with surgery in the pre-law period, preoperative opioid exposure, preoperative benzodiazepine exposure, and number of levels fused (all p<.05). Chronic (>90 day) opioid requirements were associated with preoperative opioid exposure (odds ratio 4.42, p<.001) but not with pre/post-law status (p>.05). Pre- and post-law patients were similar in terms of 30- or 90-day ED visits, unplanned readmissions, and reoperations (all p>.05). CONCLUSIONS:Implementation of mandatory opioid prescribing limits effectively decreased 30-day postoperative opioid utilization following ACDF without a rebound increase in prescription refills, ED visits, unplanned hospital readmissions, or reoperations for pain.

Vascular complications in spine surgery are rare but potentially devastating events. They may occur during surgery in the cervical, thoracic, and lumbo-sacral regions of the spine, and all operative approaches present at least some risk. Some complications are highly specific to various approaches and/or procedures. Meticulous surgical technique, careful preoperative planning, and familiarity with normal and anomalous vascular anatomy may minimize the risk of complications. Spine surgeons should be knowledgeable regarding specific and general vascular complications as early recognition and timely treatment may prevent poor patient outcomes.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:The purpose of this study was to systematically review and quantitatively analyze outcomes in operative versus nonoperative management of displaced midshaft clavicle fractures in pediatric and adolescent patients. DATA SOURCES/METHODS:Using the Preferred Reporting items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, systematic searches of PubMed and EMBASE were conducted to identify English-language studies reporting outcomes in displaced pediatric midshaft clavicle fractures from 1997 to 2018. STUDY SELECTION/METHODS:Studies that reported on outcomes of operative and/or nonoperative treatment of displaced midshaft clavicle fractures in patients younger than 19 years were included. DATA EXTRACTION/METHODS:Patient and treatment characteristics, union rates, time to union, time to return to activity, patient-reported outcome measures, and complications were extracted. DATA SYNTHESIS/RESULTS:All extracted data were recorded and qualitatively compared. QuickDASH (Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand) scores and Constant scores were pooled using random-effects modeling and compared among studies, which adequately reported data for hypothesis testing. CONCLUSIONS:Three thousand eight hundred ten articles were identified, and 12 met inclusion criteria. These studies encompassed 497 patients with an average age of 14.1 years (8-18 years, range). Both operative and nonoperative management of displaced midshaft clavicle fractures in this population provide excellent rates of union and patient-reported outcome measures. Compared with nonoperative management, operative management yielded faster return to activity, superior Constant scores, and equal QuickDASH scores. Operative management had higher complication rates and complications that required secondary operative treatment (mostly related to implant prominence). LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.