Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND CONTEXT/BACKGROUND:Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion with percutaneous posterior screw fixation are two techniques used to address degenerative lumbar pathologies. Traditionally, these anterior-posterior (AP) surgeries involve repositioning the patient from the supine or lateral decubitus position to prone for posterior fixation. To reduce operative time (OpTime) and subsequent complications of prolonged anesthesia, single-position lumbar surgery (SPLS) is a novel, minimally invasive alternative performed entirely from the lateral decubitus position. PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Assess the perioperative safety and efficacy of single position AP lumbar fusion surgery (SPLS). STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Multicenter retrospective cohort study. PATIENT SAMPLE/METHODS:Three hundred and ninety patients undergoing AP surgery were included, of which 237 underwent SPLS and 153 were in the Flip group. OUTCOME MEASURES/METHODS:Outcome measures included levels fused, percentage of cases including L5-S1 fusion, fluoroscopy radiation dosage, OpTime, estimated blood loss (EBL), length of stay (LOS), and perioperative complications. Radiographic analysis included lumbar lordosis (LL), pelvic incidence, pelvic tilt, and segmental LL. METHODS:Patients undergoing primary Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion and/or Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion surgery with bilateral percutaneous pedicle screw fixation between L2-S1 were included over a 4-year period. Patients were classified as either traditional repositioned "Flip" surgery or SPLS. Outcome measures included levels fused, percentage of cases including L5-S1 fusion, fluoroscopy radiation dosage, OpTime, EBL, LOS, perioperative complications. Radiographic analysis included LL, pelvic incidence, pelvic tilt, and segmental LL. All measures were compared using independent samples t-tests and chi-squared analyses as appropriate with significance set at p < .05. Propensity matching was completed where demographic differences were found. RESULTS:Three hundred and ninety patients undergoing AP surgery were included, of which 237 underwent SPLS and 153 were in the Flip group. Age, gender, BMI, and CCI were similar between groups. Levels fused (1.47 SPLS vs 1.52 Flip, p = .468) and percent cases including L5-S1 (31% SPLS, 35% Flip, p = .405) were similar between cohorts. SPLS significantly reduced OpTime (103 min vs 306 min, p < .001), EBL (97 vs 313 mL, p < .001), LOS (1.71 vs 4.12 days, p < .001), and fluoroscopy radiation dosage (32 vs 88 mGy, p < .001) compared to Flip. Perioperative complications were similar between cohorts with the exception of postoperative ileus, which was significantly lower in the SPLS group (0% vs 5%, p < .001). There was no significant difference in wound, vascular injury, neurological complications, or Venous Thrombotic Event. There was no significant difference found in 90-day return to operating room (OR). CONCLUSIONS:SPLS improves operative efficiency in addition to reducing blood loss, LOS and ileus in this large cohort study, while maintaining safety.

Purpose/UNASSIGNED:The aim is to investigate the relationship between cervical parameters and the modified Japanese Orthopedic Association scale (mJOA). Materials and Methods/UNASSIGNED:> 0.05), Pearson correlations were run for radiographic parameters and mJOA. For significant correlations, logistic regressions were performed to determine a threshold of radiographic measures for which the correlation with mJOA scores was most significant. mJOA score of 14 and <12 reported cut-off values for moderate (M) and severe (S) disability. New modifiers were compared to an existing classification using Spearman's rho and logistic regression analyses to predict outcomes up to 2 years. Results/UNASSIGNED:= 0.002). Compared to existing Ames- International Spine Study Group classification, the novel thresholds demonstrated significant predictive value for reoperation and mortality up to 2 years. Conclusions/UNASSIGNED:Collectively, these radiographic values can be utilized in refining existing classifications and developing collective understanding of severity and surgical targets in corrective surgery for adult CD.

BACKGROUND:Spinal surgery is associated with an inherently elevated risk profile, and thus far there has been limited discussion about how these outpatient spine patients are benefiting from these same-day procedures against other typical outpatient orthopedic surgeries. METHODS:Orthopedic patients who received either inpatient or outpatient surgery were isolated in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality of Improvement Program (2005-2016). Patients were stratified by type of orthopedic surgery received (spine, knee, ankle, shoulder, or hip). Mean comparisons and chi-squared tests assessed basic demographics. Perioperative complications were analyzed via regression analyses in regard to their principal inpatient or outpatient orthopedic surgery received. RESULTS:< .05) with complications decreasing for IN and OUT patients by 2016. CONCLUSIONS:Over the past decade, spine surgery has decreased in complications for IN and OUT procedures along with IN/OUT knee, ankle, hip, and shoulder procedures, reflecting greater tolerance for risk in an outpatient setting. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:3. CLINICAL RELEVANCE/CONCLUSIONS:Despite the increase in riskier spine procedures, complications have decreased over the years. Surgeons should aim to continue to decrease inpatient spine complications to the level of other orthopedic surgeries.

Endoscopic spine surgery (ESS) is growing in popularity as a minimally invasive approach to a variety of spinal conditions. Similar to other types of minimally invasive spine surgery (MISS), ESS aims to address the underlying pathology while minimizing surrounding tissue disruption. Its use in the lumbar spine has progressed over the past 50 years and is now routinely used in cases of lumbar disc herniations and stenosis. This review defines common terminology, highlights important developments in the history of ESS, and discusses its current and future application in the lumbar spine.

Background/UNASSIGNED:The decision upper-most instrumented vertebrae (UIV) in a multi-level fusion procedure can dramatically influence outcomes of corrective spine surgery. We aimed to create an algorithm for selection of UIV based on surgeon selection/reasoning of sample cases. Methods/UNASSIGNED:The clinical/imaging data for 11 adult spinal deformity (ASD) patients were presented to 14 spine deformity surgeons who selected the UIV and provided reasons for avoidance of adjacent levels. The UIV chosen was grouped into either upper thoracic (UT, T1-T6), lower thoracic (LT, T7-T12), lumbar or cervical. Disagreement between surgeons was defined as ≥3 not agreeing. We performed a descriptive analysis of responses and created an algorithm for choosing UIV then applied this to a large database of ASD patients. Results/UNASSIGNED:. 38.9%, P=0.025). Conclusions/UNASSIGNED:Our algorithm for selection of UIV emphasizes the role of proximal and regional thoracic kyphosis. Failure to follow this consensus for UT fusion was associated with twice the rate of PJK.

STUDY DESIGN/UNASSIGNED:Retrospective review of a multicenter prospective registry. OBJECTIVES/UNASSIGNED:Our goal was to develop a method to risk-stratify adult spinal deformity (ASD) patients on the basis of their accumulated health deficits. We developed a novel comorbidity score (CS) specific to patients with ASD based on their preoperative health state and investigated whether it was associated with major complications, length of hospital stay (LOS), and self-reported outcomes after ASD surgery. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:We identified 273 operatively treated ASD patients with 2-year follow-up. We assessed associations between major complications and age, comorbidities, Charlson Comorbidity Index score, and Oswestry Disability Index score. Significant factors were used to construct the ASD-CS. Associations of ASD-CS with major complications, LOS, and patient-reported outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:< .01) in patients with ASD-CS of 7 or 8. Patients with ASD-CS of 7 or 8 had the longest mean LOS (10.7 days) and worst mean Scoliosis Research Society-22r total score at baseline; however, they experienced the greatest mean improvement (0.98 points) over 2 years. CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:The ASD-CS is significantly associated with major complications, LOS, and patient-reported outcomes in operatively treated ASD patients.

OBJECTIVE:Cervical deformity (CD) patients have severe disability and poor health status. However, little is known about how patients with rigid CD compare with those with flexible CD. The main objectives of this study were to 1) assess whether patients with rigid CD have worse baseline alignment and therefore require more aggressive surgical corrections and 2) determine whether patients with rigid CD have similar postoperative outcomes as those with flexible CD. METHODS:This is a retrospective review of a prospective, multicenter CD database. Rigid CD was defined as cervical lordosis (CL) change < 10° between flexion and extension radiographs, and flexible CD was defined as a CL change ≥ 10°. Patients with rigid CD were compared with those with flexible CD in terms of cervical alignment and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) at baseline and at multiple postoperative time points. The patients were also compared in terms of surgical and intraoperative factors such as operative time, blood loss, and number of levels fused. RESULTS:A total of 127 patients met inclusion criteria (32 with rigid and 95 with flexible CD, 63.4% of whom were females; mean age 60.8 years; mean BMI 27.4); 47.2% of cases were revisions. Rigid CD was associated with worse preoperative alignment in terms of T1 slope minus CL, T1 slope, C2-7 sagittal vertical axis (cSVA), and C2 slope (C2S; all p < 0.05). Postoperatively, patients with rigid CD had an increased mean C2S (29.1° vs 22.2°) at 3 months and increased cSVA (47.1 mm vs 37.5 mm) at 1 year (p < 0.05) compared with those with flexible CD. Patients with rigid CD had more posterior levels fused (9.5 vs 6.3), fewer anterior levels fused (1 vs 2.0), greater blood loss (1036.7 mL vs 698.5 mL), more 3-column osteotomies (40.6% vs 12.6%), greater total osteotomy grade (6.5 vs 4.5), and mean osteotomy grade per level (3.3 vs 2.1) (p < 0.05 for all). There were no significant differences in baseline HRQOL scores, the rate of distal junctional kyphosis, or major/minor complications between patients with rigid and flexible CD. Both rigid and flexible CD patients reported significant improvements from baseline to 1 year according to the numeric rating scale for the neck (-2.4 and -2.7, respectively), Neck Disability Index (-8.4 and -13.3, respectively), modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association score (0.1 and 0.6), and EQ-5D (0.01 and 0.05) (p < 0.05). However, HRQOL changes from baseline to 1 year did not differ between rigid and flexible CD patients. CONCLUSIONS:Patients with rigid CD have worse baseline cervical malalignment compared with those with flexible CD but do not significantly differ in terms of baseline disability. Rigid CD was associated with more invasive surgery and more aggressive corrections, resulting in increased operative time and blood loss. Despite more extensive surgeries, rigid CD patients had equivalent improvements in HRQOL compared with flexible CD patients. This study quantifies the importance of analyzing flexion-extension images, creating a prognostic tool for surgeons planning CD correction, and counseling patients who are considering CD surgery.

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.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT/BACKGROUND:Numerous advances have been made in the field of spine fusion, such as minimally invasive (MIS) or robotic-assisted spine surgery. However, it is unknown how these advances have impacted the cost of care. PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Compare the economic outcomes of lumbar spine fusion between open, MIS, and robot-assisted surgery patients. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING/METHODS:Retrospective review of a single center spine surgery database. PATIENT SAMPLE/METHODS:360 propensity matched patients. OUTCOME MEASURES/METHODS:Costs, EuroQol-5D (EQ5D), cost per quality adjusted life years (QALY). METHODS:Inclusion criteria: surgical patients >18 years undergoing lumbar fusion surgery. Patients were categorized into 3 groups based on procedure type: open, MIS, or robotic. Open patients undergoing poster spinal fusion were considered as the control group. MIS patients included those undergoing transforaminal or lateral lumbar interbody fusion with percutaneous screws. Robotic patients were those undergoing robot-assisted fusion. Propensity score matching was performed between all groups for the number of levels fused. Costs were calculated using the PearlDiver database, which reflects both private insurance and Medicare reimbursement claims for ICD-9 codes. For robotic cases, costs were reflective of operational fees and initial purchase cost. Complications and comorbidities (CC) and major complications and comorbidities (MCC) were assessed according to CMS.gov manual definitions. QALYs and cost per QALY were calculated using a 3% discount rate to account for residual decline to life expectancy (78.7 years). Costs per QALY were calculated for both 1 year and life expectancy, assuming no loss of benefit. A 10,000 trial Monte Carlo simulation with probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) assessed our model parameters and costs. RESULTS:360 propensity matched patients (120 open, 120 MIS, 120 robotic) met inclusion criteria. Descriptive statistics for the cohort were: age 58.8 ± 13.5, 50% women, BMI 29.4 ± 6.3, operative time 294.4 ± 119.0, LOS 4.56 ± 3.31 days, EBL 515.9 ± 670.0 cc, and 2.3 ± 2.2 average levels fused. Rates of post-op complications were significantly higher in robotic cases versus open and MIS (43% vs. 21% and 22% for open and MIS, p<0.05). However, revision rates were comparable between all groups (3% open, 3% MIS, 5% robotic, p>0.05). After factoring in complications, revisions, and purchasing and operating fees, the costs of robotic cases was significantly higher than both open and MIS surgery ($60,047.01 vs. $42,538.98 open and $41,471.21 MIS). In a subanalysis of 42 patients with baseline (BL) and 1Y EQ5D data, the cost per QALY at 1Y for open, MIS, and robot-assisted cases was $296,624.48, $115,911.69, and $592,734.30. If utility gained was sustained to life expectancy, the cost per QALY was $14,905.75, $5,824.71, $29,785.64 for open, MIS, and robot-assisted cases. Results of the PSA were consistent with MIS surgery having the most incremental cost effectiveness when compared to open and robotic surgery. CONCLUSIONS:Numerous advances have been made in the field of spine surgery, however, there has been limited discussion of the effect these advances have on economic outcomes. When matched for levels fused, robot-assisted surgery patients had significantly higher rates of complications and 30% higher costs of surgery compared to minimally invasive and open spine surgery patients. While 1 year economic outcomes weren't optimal for robotic surgery cases, the projected costs per quality adjusted life years at life expectancy were well below established acceptable thresholds. The above findings may be reflective of an educational learning curve and emerging surgical technologies undergoing progressive refinement.