Faculty Bibliography

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective cohort study at a single institution. OBJECTIVE:To analyze the perioperative and postoperative outcomes of patients who underwent open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (O-TLIF) and bilateral minimally invasive (MIS) Wiltse approach TLIF (Wil-TLIF). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA/BACKGROUND:Several studies have compared Open TLIF to MIS TLIF, however, comparing the techniques using a large cohort of one-level TLIFs has not been fully explored. METHODS:We reviewed the charts of patients undergoing a single-level primary posterior lumbar interbody fusion between 2012 and 2017. The cases were categorized as Open TLIF (traditional midline exposure including lateral exposure of transverse processes) or bilateral paramedian Wiltse TLIF approach. Differences between groups were assessed by t-tests. RESULTS:227 patients underwent one-level primary TLIF (116 O-TLIF, 111 Wil-TLIF). There was no difference in age, gender, ASA or BMI between groups. Wil-TLIF had the lowest EBL (197 mL vs. 499 mL O-TLIF, p =  < .001), LOS (2.7 days vs. 3.6 days O-TLIF, p =  < .001), overall complication rate (12% vs. 24% O-TLIF, p = .015), minor complication rate (7% vs. 16% O-TLIF, p = .049), and 90-day readmission rate (1% vs. 8% O-TLIF, p = .012). Wil-TLIF was associated with the higher fluoroscopy time (83 sec vs. vs. 24 sec O-TLIF, p =  < .001). There was not a significant difference in operative time, intraoperative or neurological complications, extubation time, reoperation rate, or infection rate. CONCLUSIONS:In comparing Wiltse MIS TLIF to Open TLIF, the minimally invasive paramedian Wiltse approach demonstrated the lowest EBL, LOS, readmission rates and complications, but longer fluoroscopy times when compared to the traditional open approach. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:3.

Study Design/UNASSIGNED:Retrospective cohort study. Objective/UNASSIGNED:Factors that predict outcomes for adult cervical spine deformity (ACSD) have not been well defined. To compare ACSD patients with best versus worst outcomes. Methods/UNASSIGNED:This study was based on a prospective, multicenter observational ACSD cohort. Best versus worst outcomes were compared based on Neck Disability Index (NDI), Neck Pain Numeric Rating Scale (NP-NRS), and modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association (mJOA) scores. Results/UNASSIGNED:= .008). Conclusions/UNASSIGNED:Factors distinguishing best and worst ACSD surgery outcomes included patient, surgical, and radiographic factors. These findings suggest areas that may warrant greater awareness to optimize patient counseling and outcomes.

STUDY DESIGN:Retrospective review of a prospectively collected multicenter database. OBJECTIVES:To evaluate the evolution of surgical treatment strategies, complications, and patient-reported outcomes for adult spinal deformity (ASD) patients. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA:ASD surgery is associated with high complication rates. Evolving treatment strategies may reduce these risks. METHODS:Adult patients undergoing ASD surgery from 2009 to 2016 were analyzed (n = 905). Preoperative and surgical parameters were compared across years. Subgroup analysis of 436 patients with minimum two-year follow-up was also performed. RESULTS:From 2009 to 2016, there was a significant increase in the mean preoperative age (52 to 63.1, p < .001), body mass index (26.3 to 32.2, p = .003), Charlson Comorbidity index (1.4 to 2.2, p < .001), rate of previous spine surgery (39.8% to 53.1%, p = .01), and baseline disability (visual analog scale [VAS] back and leg pain) scores (p < .01), Oswestry Disability Index, and 22-item Scoliosis Research Society Questionnaire scores (p < .001). Preoperative Schwab sagittal alignment modifiers and overall surgical invasiveness index were similar across time. Three-column osteotomy utilization decreased from 36% in 2011 to 16.7% in 2016. Lateral lumbar interbody fusion increased from 6.4% to 24.1% (p = .004), anterior lumbar interbody fusion decreased from 22.9% to 16.7% (p = .043), and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion/posterior lumbar interbody fusion utilization remained similar (p = .448). Use of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2) in 2012 was 84.6%, declined to 58% in 2013, and rebounded to 76.3% in 2016 (p = .006). Tranexamic acid use increased rapidly from 2009 to 2016 (13.3% to 48.6%, p < .001). Two-year follow-up sagittal vertical axis, pelvic tilt, pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis, and maximum Cobb angles were similar across years. Intraoperative complications decreased from 33% in 2010 to 9.3% in 2016 (p < .001). Perioperative (<30 days, <90 days) complications peaked in 2010 (42.7%, 46%) and decreased by 2016 (24.1%, p < .001; 29.6%, p = .007). The overall complication rate decreased from 73.2% in 2008-2014 patients to 62.6% in 2015-2016 patients (p = .03). Two-year health-related quality of life outcomes did not significantly differ across the years (p > .05). CONCLUSIONS:From 2009 to 2016, despite an increasingly elderly, medically compromised, and obese patient population, complication rates decreased. Evolving strategies may result in improved treatment of ASD patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:Level IV.

Fractures of the odontoid represent as much as 20% of cervical spine fractures in adults, and they are the most common spine fracture in patients over 80 years of age. Despite their prevalence, the management of these fractures remains highly controversial. In particular, there is much debate concerning the management of type II fractures, or fractures occurring about the waist of the odontoid. We will review the epidemiology, evaluation, management-both operative and non-operative-and outcomes of adults with type II odontoid fractures. We will particularly focus on debates concerning hard collar versus halo, anterior versus posterior surgery, the management of odontoid nonunions, as well as questions about risks and benefits of surgery in the very elderly.

STUDY DESIGN:Retrospective review from a single institution. OBJECTIVES:To evaluate intraoperative T1-pelvic angle (TPA), T4PA, and T9PA as predictors of postoperative global alignment after adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA:Malalignment following adult spinal surgery is associated with disability and correlates with health-related quality of life. Preoperative planning and intraoperative verification are crucial for optimal postoperative outcomes. Currently, only pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis (PI-LL) mismatch has been used to assess intraoperative correction. METHODS:Patients undergoing ≥4-level spinal fusion with full-length pre-, intra-, and first postoperative calibrated radiographs were included from a single institution. Alignment measurements were obtained for sagittal vertical axis (SVA), PI-LL, TPA, T4PA, and T9PA. The whole cohort was divided into upper thoracic (UT: UIV > T7) and lower thoracic fusions (LT: UIV < T7). Change was assessed between phases, and a subanalysis was included for UT and LT groups to compare alignment changes for differing extent of proximal fusion in the sagittal plane. RESULTS:Eighty patients (mean 63.4 years, 70% female, mean levels fused 11.9) underwent significant ASD correction (ΔPI-LL = 22.1°; ΔTPA = 13.8°). For all, intraoperative TPA, T4PA, and T9PA correlated with postoperative SVA (range, r = 0.41-0.59), whereas intraoperative PI-LL correlated less (r = 0.38). For UT (n = 49), all spinopelvic angles and LL were similar intraoperative to postoperatively (p > .09). For LT (n = 31), intraoperative and postoperative T9PA and LL were similar (p > .10) but TPA and T4PA differed (p < .02). For UT, all intraoperative and postoperative spinopelvic angles strongly correlated (r = 0.8-0.9). For LT, intraoperative to postoperative T9PA strongly correlated (r = 0.83) and TPA, T4PA, and LL correlated moderately (r = 0.65-0.70). LT trended toward more reciprocal kyphosis postoperatively (8.1° vs. 2.6°; p = .059). CONCLUSIONS:Intraoperative measurements of TPA, T4PA, and T9PA correlated better with postoperative global alignment than PI-LL, demonstrating their utility in confirming alignment goals. When comparing intraoperative to postoperative films, only T9PA was similar in LT whereas all spinopelvic angles were similar in UT. Reciprocal kyphosis in unfused segments of LT fusions may account for difference in TPA and T4PA from intraoperative to postoperative films. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:Level III.

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective review OBJECTIVE.: Develop a simplified frailty index for CD patients SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA.: To improve preoperative risk stratification for surgical cervical deformity (CD) patients, a CD frailty index (CD-FI) incorporating 40 health deficits was developed. While novel, the CD-FI is clinically impractical due to the large number of factors needed for its calculation. To increase clinical utility, a simpler, modified CD-FI (mCD-FI) is necessary. METHODS:CD patients (C2-C7 Cobb>10°, CL>10°, cSVA>4 cm, or CBVA>25°) >18yr with preoperative CD-FI component factors. Pearson bivariate correlation assessed relationships between component deficits of the CD-FI and overall CD-FI score. Top deficits contributing to CD-FI score were included in multiple stepwise regression models. Deficits from model with largest R were dichotomized, and the mean score of all deficits calculated, resulting in mCD-FI score from 0 to 1. Patients were stratified by mCD-FI: Not Frail (NF, <0.3), Frail (0.3-0.5), Severely Frail (SF, >0.5). Means comparison tests established correlations between frailty category and clinical outcomes. RESULTS:Included: 121 CD patients (61 ± 11yr, 60%F). Multiple stepwise regression models identified 15 deficits as responsible for 86% of the variation in CD-FI; these factors were used to construct the mCD-FI. Overall, mean mCD-FI was 0.31 ± 0.14. Breakdown of patients by mCD-FI category: NF: 47.9%, Frail: 46.3%, SF: 5.8%. Compared to NF and Frail, SF patients had the longest inpatient hospital stays (P = 0.042), as well as greater baseline neck pain (P = 0.033), inferior NDI scores (P<0.001) and inferior EQ-5D scores (P < 0.001). Frail patients had higher odds of superficial infection (OR:1.1[1.0-1.2]), and SF patients had increased odds of mortality (OR:8.3[1.3-53.9]). CONCLUSIONS:Increased frailty, assessed by mCD-FI, correlated with increased length of stay, neck pain, and decreased health-related quality of life. Frail patients were at greater risk for infection, and severely frail patients had greater odds of mortality. This relationship between frailty and clinical outcomes suggests that mCD-FI offers clinical utility as a preoperative risk stratification tool. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:3.

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:A retrospective analysis of a patient-reported outcomes database from a single institution from December 2016 to April 2017. OBJECTIVE:To validate the association of PROMIS with NDI in patients with neck pain and examine each instruments ability to capture concomitant arm pain and concomitant back pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA/BACKGROUND:PROMIS has been increasingly utilized and its computer adapted testing methodology improves assessment of pain and disability. However literature is lacking regarding how these instruments perform in neck pain patients with concomitant arm pain or back pain. METHODS:Inclusion criteria were age>18years and a primary complaint of neck pain. The NDI, VAS Back, Neck, Arm and Leg, and PROMIS Physical Function, Pain Intensity, and Pain Interference questionnaires were administered. Propensity score matching was performed to compare patients with high and low back and arm pain while controlling for neck pain. Bivariate correlations and independent samples t-tests were performed to assess linear relationships and compare back and arm pain groups with PROMIS. RESULTS:130 patients were included. NDI correlated strongly to PROMIS Physical Function (r = -0.771, p < 0.001), Pain Intensity (r = 0.605, p < 0.001), and Pain Interference (r = 0.786, p < 0.001). VAS Neck and Arm Pain also correlated to the PROMIS Pain Intensity instrument (VAS Neck: r = 0.642, p < 0.001; VAS Arm: r = 0.376, p < 0.001).Following matching for neck pain, the high and low back pain groups each included 32 patients. There were significant differences in PROMIS Physical Function when high and low back pain groups were compared (39.07 vs 43.68, p = 0.031). No significant difference was found for any outcome metric for high and low arm pain groups. CONCLUSIONS:PROMIS instruments are capable of characterizing pain and disability in patients with neck pain and are sensitive to disability in regions adjacent to the neck. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:3.

OBJECTIVEThe Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) has become increasingly popular due to computer adaptive testing methodology. This study aims to validate the association between PROMIS and legacy outcome metrics and compare PROMIS to legacy metrics in terms of ceiling and floor effects and questionnaire burden.METHODSA retrospective review of an outcomes database was performed at a single institution from December 2016 to April 2017. Inclusion criteria were age > 18 years and a chief complaint of back pain or neck pain. The PROMIS computer adaptive testing Pain Interference, Physical Function (PF), and Pain Intensity domains; Oswestry Disability Index (ODI); Neck Disability Index (NDI); and visual analog scale (VAS) back, VAS leg, VAS neck, and VAS arm were completed in random order. PROMIS was compared to legacy metrics in terms of the average number of questions needed to complete each questionnaire and the score distributions in the lower and higher bounds of scores.RESULTSA total of 494 patients with back pain and 130 patients with neck pain were included. For back pain, ODI showed a strong correlation with PROMIS-PF (R = -0.749, p < 0.001), Pain Intensity (R = 0.709, p < 0.001), and Pain Interference (R = 0.790, p < 0.001) domains. Additionally, the PROMIS Pain Intensity domain correlated to both VAS back and neck pain (R = 0.642, p < 0.001 for both). PROMIS-PF took significantly fewer questions to complete compared to the ODI (4.123 vs 9.906, p < 0.001). When assessing for instrument sensitivity, neither survey presented a significant ceiling and floor effect in the back pain population (ODI: 0.40% and 2.63%; PROMIS-PF: 0.60% and 1.41%). In the neck pain cohort, NDI showed a strong correlation with PROMIS-PF (R = 0.771, p < 0.001). Additionally, PROMIS Pain Intensity correlated to VAS neck (R = 0.642, p < 0.001). The mean number of questions required to complete the questionnaire was much lower for PROMIS-PF compared to NDI (4.417 vs 10, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences found in terms of ceiling and floor effects for neck complaints (NDI: 2.3% and 6.92%; PROMIS-PF: 0.00% and 5.38%) or back complaints (ODI: 0.40% and 2.63%; PROMIS-PF: 1.41% and 0.60%).CONCLUSIONSPROMIS correlates strongly with traditional disability measures in patients with back pain and neck pain. For both back and neck pain, the PROMIS-PF required patients to answer significantly fewer questions to achieve similar granularity. There were no significant differences in ceiling and floor effects for NDI or ODI when compared with the PROMIS-PF instrument.

Study Design/UNASSIGNED:Retrospective cohort study. Objective/UNASSIGNED:Determine the indications, complications, and clinical outcomes in patients requiring fusions from the cervical spine to the pelvis. Several investigators have examined fusions from the thoracic spine to the sacrum, but no similar study has been performed for cervical-to-pelvis fusions. Methods/UNASSIGNED:< .05 for all tests. Results/UNASSIGNED:< .01). Conclusion/UNASSIGNED:Proximal junctional kyphosis is the most common indication for patients requiring fusion to the cervical spine. Adult patients incur a significant risk of major complications and reoperations. However, significant improvement in SRS-22r outcomes are noted in these patients.

BACKGROUND AND IMPORTANCE/BACKGROUND:The use of nerve transfers to restore nerve function following traumatic avulsion injuries has been described, though there is still a paucity in the literature documenting technique and long-term outcomes for these procedures. The double Oberlin nerve transfer involves transferring fascicles from the median and ulnar nerves to the musculocutaneous nerve to restore elbow flexion in patients with a C5-C6 avulsion injury. The purpose of this case report is to present our indications and technique for a double Oberlin transfer in addition to exhibiting video footage at follow-up time points documenting the incremental improvement in elbow flexion following the injury. CLINICAL PRESENTATION/METHODS:The patient is a 25-yr old, left-hand dominant male who presented 5 mo following a motor vehicle accident. He had 0/5 biceps muscle strength on the left with a computed tomography myelogram that demonstrated pseudomeningoceles from C2-C3 to C7-T1 with root avulsions of C5 and C6. He was subsequently indicated for a double Oberlin nerve transfer to restore elbow flexion. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:In this case report, we present our technique and outcomes for a double Oberlin transfer with restoration of elbow flexion at 1-yr follow-up for a patient with traumatic brachial plexus injury. We believe that the double Oberlin transfer serves as a safe and effective method to restore elbow flexion in this patient population.