Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Congenital scoliosis (CS) is associated with more rigid, complex deformities relative to adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) which theoretically increases surgical complications. Despite extensive literature studying AIS patients, few studies have been performed on CS patients. The purpose of this study was to evaluate complications associated with spinal fusions for CS and AIS. METHODS:A retrospective review of the Kid's Inpatient Database (KID) years 2000 to 2009 was performed. Inclusion: patients under 20 years with ICD-9 diagnosis codes for idiopathic scoliosis (IS-without concomitant congenital anomalies) and CS, undergoing spinal fusion from the KID years 2000 to 2009. Two analyses were performed according to age below 10 years and 10 years and above. Univariate analysis described differences in demographics, comorbidities, intraoperative complications, and clinical values between groups. Binary logistic regression controlling for age, sex, race, and invasiveness predicted complications risk in CS (odds ratios; 95% confidence interval). RESULTS:In total, 25,131 patients included (IS, n=22443; CS, n=2688). For patients under age 10, CS patients underwent 1 level shorter fusions (P<0.001), had fewer comorbidities (P<0.001), and sustained similar complication incidence. In the 10 and over age analysis, CS patients similarly had shorter fusions, but greater comorbidities, and significantly more complications (odds ratio, 1.6; confidence interval, 1.4-1.8). CONCLUSIONS:CS patients have higher in-hospital complication rates. With more comorbidities, these patients have increased risk of sustaining procedure-related complications such as shock, infection, and Adult Respiratory Distress Syndrome. These data help to counsel patients and their families before spinal fusion. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Level III-retrospective review of a prospectively collected database.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:Determine significant associations between patient frailty status and odontoid fractures across common traumatic mechanisms of injuries (MOI) in the elderly. DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective review. SETTING/METHODS:Single, academic-affiliated hospital with full surgical servicesPatients/Participants: Patients >65 years old with traumatic odontoid fracture were included. INTERVENTION/METHODS:Non-operative management (soft/hard collar, halo, traction tongs, minerva) and/or operative fixation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS/METHODS:mFI, MOI, concurrent injuries, inpatient LOS, reoperation and mortality rates. RESULTS:70 patients were included (80.6±8.5yrs, 60%F, 88% European, 10% Maori/Pacific, 1.4% Asian, CCI 5.3± 2.2, mFI 0.21±0.15). The most common MOIs were Falls (74.3%), high speed MVAs (17.1%), low speed MVAs (5.7%), and pedestrian vs car (2.9%). Patients with traumatic falls exhibited significantly higher mFI scores (0.25) compared to low speed MVAs (0.16), high speed MVAs (0.08), and pedestrian vs car (0.01) (p=0.003). Twenty-seven patients with odontoid fractures were Frail, 33 were Pre-frail, and 10 were Robust. 92% of Frail patients had traumatic fall as their MOI, as opposed to 73% of Pre-frail and 30% of Robust patients (p<0.001). Pre-frail and Frail patients were 4.3 times more likely than Robust patients to present with odontoid fractures via traumatic fall (OR: 4.33 [1.47-12.75], p=0.008), and frailty increased likelihood of reoperation (OR: 4.2 [1.2-14.75], p=0.025) and extended LOS (OR: 5.71 [1.05-10.37], p=0.017). Frail patients had the highest 30-day (p=0.017) and 1-year mortality (p<0.001) compared to other groups. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Patients with traumatic odontoid fracture from falls were significantly more frail in comparison to any other MOI, with worse short and long-term outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Level III Retrospective Cohort Study.

Background/UNASSIGNED:Given the paucity of literature regarding compensatory mechanisms used by obese patients with sagittal malalignment, it is necessary to gain a better understanding of the effects of obesity on compensation after comparing the degree of malalignment to age-adjusted ideals. This study aims to compare baseline alignment of obese and nonobese patients using age-adjusted spino-pelvic alignment parameters, describing associated spinal changes. Methods/UNASSIGNED:tests compared parameters between cohorts. Results/UNASSIGNED: < .001) compared to nonobese patients with PI-LL larger than age-adjusted ideal. Conclusions/UNASSIGNED:Regardless of malalignment severity, obese patients recruited lower-limb compensation more than nonobese patients. Obese patients with PI-LL mismatch larger than age-adjusted ideal also develop upper-cervical and cervicothoracic compensation for malalignment. Level of Evidence/UNASSIGNED:III. Clinical Relevance/UNASSIGNED:Clinical evaluation should extend to the cervical spine in obese patients not meeting age-adjusted sagittal alignment ideals.

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective cohort. OBJECTIVE:Identify the nonradiographic predictors of a patient's decision to undergo elective spine surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA/BACKGROUND:Up to 132 million people seek elective evaluation by spine surgeons annually, though 55%-82% of specialty referrals may be inappropriate. We sought to determine which clinical and psychosocial factors are associated with surgical utilization by patients seeking surgical evaluation for degenerative spine pathologies. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:Consecutive elective outpatient visits seen in a single clinic between May 2016 and April 2017 for degenerative spine pathologies were reviewed. Data were collected on presenting symptoms, baseline medical illness, demographics, and previous spine care. Multivariable logistic regressions were performed to determine which factors were associated with surgical candidacy and surgical utilization. RESULTS:A total of 353 patients were seen during the period reviewed, of which 144 had complete medical records. Our cohort included 90 nonsurgical candidates, 25 surgical candidates who declined surgery, and 29 patients who underwent surgery. In multivariable analysis, factors negatively associated with surgical candidacy were age, a history of smoking, and osteoporosis, where those positively associated with surgical candidacy were reports of spine-specific pain, higher Charlson Comorbidity Index, pain medication use, number of neurological symptoms, and being myelopathic. Factors positively associated with surgical utilization included proportion of all complaints that were neurological in nature, being myelopathic, higher Charlson Comorbidity Index, and report of pain as chronic, whereas being osteoporotic was negatively associated with surgical use. A receiver operating curve constructed for these models produced c-statistics of 0.75 and 0.80, respectively. CONCLUSIONS:Our results suggest that the results of standard clinic intake questions, such as review of systems, medical history, and chief complaints, may be predictive of surgical candidacy before evaluation by a surgeon. The present pilot study suggests a preliminary algorithm that can be further validated and expanded upon to help decide on optimal patient referrals to spine surgery specialists.

In the current value-based healthcare climate where spine surgery is shifting to the ambulatory setting, factors influencing postop length of stay (LOS) are important to surgeons and hospital administrators. Pre-op patient factors including diagnosis of radiculopathy and myelopathy have yet to be investigated in this context. Operative pts ≥ 18Y with primary diagnoses of cervical myelopathy (M), radiculopathy (R), or myeloradiculopathy (MR) were included and propensity score matched by invasiveness score (Mirza et al.). Top-quartile LOS was defined as extended. M&R patients were compared using Chi² & independent t-tests. Univariate tests assessed differences in preop patient and surgical data in M&R pts and extended/non-extended LOS. Stepwise regression analysis explored factors predictive of LOS. 718 operative pts (54.5 yrs, 41.1%F, 29.1 kg/m², mean CCI 1.11) included (177 M, 383 R, and 158 MR). After PSM, 345 patients remained (115 in each diagnosis). 102 patients had E-LOS (Avg: 5.96 days), 41 M patients (mean 7.1 days), 28 R (5.9 days), and 33 MR (4.6 days). Regression showed predictors of E-LOS in R pts (R²â€¯= 0.532, p = 0.043): TS-CL, combined and posterior approach, LIV, UIV, op time, Lactated Ringer's, postoperative complications. Predictors of E-LOS in M pts (R²â€¯= 0.230, p < 0.001): age, CCI, combined and posterior approach, levels fused, UIV, EBL, neuro and any postop complications. Predictors of E-LOS in MR patients (R²â€¯= 0.152, p < 0.001): age, kyphosis, combined approach, UIV, LIV, levels fused, EBL and op time. Independent of invasiveness, patients with a primary diagnosis of myelopathy, though older aged and higher comorbidity profile, had consistently longer overall postop LOS when compared to radiculopathy or myeloradiculopathy patients.

MINI: 172 patients underwent a primary TLIF. Those receiving <250 total MME (44%) as an inpatient had a 3.73 (odds ratio) times smaller probability of requiring opioids at 6 month follow-up. Patients who received >500 total MME (27%) had a 4.84 times greater probability of requiring opioids at 6 month follow-up.

BACKGROUND:Currently, the functional status of patients undergoing spine surgery is assessed with quality-of-life questionnaires, and a more objective and quantifiable assessment method is lacking. Dr. Jean Dubousset conceptually proposed a four-component functional test, but to our knowledge, reference values derived from asymptomatic individuals have not yet been reported, and these are needed to assess the test's clinical utility in patients with spinal deformities. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES/OBJECTIVE:(1) What are the reference values for the Dubousset Functional Test (DFT) in asymptomatic people? (2) Is there a correlation between demographic variables such as age and BMI and performance of the DFT among asymptomatic people? METHODS:This single-institution prospective study was performed from January 1, 2018 to May 31, 2018. Asymptomatic volunteers were recruited from our college of medicine and hospital staff to participate in the DFT. Included participants did not report any musculoskeletal problems or trauma within 5 years. Additionally, they did not report any history of lower limb fracture, THA, TKA, or patellofemoral arthroplasty. Patients were also excluded if they reported any active medical comorbidities. Demographic data collected included age, sex, BMI, and self-reported race. Sixty-five asymptomatic volunteers were included in this study. Their mean age was 42 ± 15 years; 27 of the 65 participants (42%) were women. Their mean BMI was 26 ± 5 kg/m. The racial distribution of the participants was 34% white (22 of 65 participants), 25% black (16 of 65 participants), 15% Asian (10 of 65 participants), 9% subcontinental Indian (six of 65 participants), 6% Latino (four of 65 participants), and 10% other (seven of 65 participants). In a controlled setting, participants completed the DFT after verbal instruction and demonstration of each test, and all participants were video recorded. The four test components included the Up and Walking Test (unassisted sit-to-stand from a chair, walk forward/backward 5 meters [no turn], then unassisted stand-to-sit), Steps Test (ascend three steps, turn, descend three steps), Down and Sitting Test (stand-to-ground, followed by ground-to-stand, with assistance as needed), and Dual-Tasking Test (walk 5 meters forwards and back while counting down from 50 by 2). Tests were timed, and data were collected from video recordings to ensure consistency. Reference values for the DFT were determined via a descriptive analysis, and we calculated the mean, SD, 95% CI, median, and range of time taken to complete each test component, with univariate comparisons between men and women for each component. Linear correlations between age and BMI and test components were studied, and the frequency of verbal and physical pausing and adverse events was noted. RESULTS:The Up and Walking Test was completed in a mean of 15 seconds (95% CI, 14-16), the Steps Test was completed in 6.3 seconds (95% CI, 6.0-6.6), the Down and Sitting Test was completed in 6.0 seconds (95% CI, 5.4-6.6), and the Dual-Tasking Test was performed in 13 seconds (95% CI, 12-14). The length of time it took to complete the Down and Sitting (r = 0.529; p = 0.001), Up and Walking (r = 0.429; p = 0.001), and Steps (r = 0.356; p = 0.014) components increased with as the volunteer's age increased. No correlation was found between age and the time taken to complete the Dual-Tasking Test (r = 0.134; p = 0.289). Similarly, the length of time it took to complete the Down and Sitting (r = 0.372; p = 0.005), Up and Walking (r = 0.289; p = 0.032), and Steps (r = 0.366; p = 0.013) components increased with increasing BMI; no correlation was found between the Dual-Tasking Test's time and BMI (r = 0.078; p = 0.539). CONCLUSIONS:We found that the DFT could be completed by asymptomatic volunteers in approximately 1 minute, although it took longer for older patients and patients with higher BMI. CLINICAL RELEVANCE/CONCLUSIONS:We believe, but did not show, that the DFT might be useful in assessing patients with spinal deformities. The normal values we calculated should be compared in future studies with those of patients before and after undergoing spine surgery to determine whether this test has practical clinical utility. The DFT provides objective metrics to assess function and balance that are easy to obtain, and the test requires no special equipment.

Background/UNASSIGNED:Full-body stereographs for adult spinal deformity (ASD) have enhanced global deformity and lower-limb compensation associations. The advent of age-adjusted goals for classic ASD parameters (sagittal vertical axis, pelvic tilt, spino-pelvic mismatch [PI-LL]) has enabled individualized evaluation of successful versus failed realignment, though these remain to be radiographically assessed postoperatively. This study analyzes pre- and postoperative sagittal alignment to quantify patient-specific correction against age-adjusted goals, and presents differences in compensation in patients whose postoperative profile deviates from targets. Methods/UNASSIGNED:tests. Results/UNASSIGNED: < .001). Conclusions/UNASSIGNED:Global alignment cohort improvements were observed, and when comparing actual to age-adjusted alignment, undercorrections recruited pelvic and lower-limb flexion to compensate. Level of Evidence/UNASSIGNED:3.

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective review of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database years 2010-2015. OBJECTIVE:Investigate which short-term outcomes differ for cervical laminoplasty and laminectomy and fusion surgeries. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA/BACKGROUND:Conflicting reports exist in spine literature regarding short-term outcomes following cervical laminoplasty and posterior laminectomy and fusion. The objective of this study was to compare the 30-day outcomes for these two treatment groups for multilevel cervical pathology. METHODS:Patients who underwent cervical laminoplasty or posterior laminectomy and fusion were identified in NSQIP based on Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code: Laminoplasty 63050 and 63051, Posterior cervical laminectomy 63015 and 63045, and instrumentation 22842. Propensity-adjusted multivariate regressions assessed differences in postoperative length of stay, adverse events, discharge disposition, and readmission. RESULTS:3796 patients were included: 2397 (63%) underwent cervical laminectomy and fusion and 1399 (37%) underwent cervical laminoplasty. Both groups were similar in age, gender, BMI, ASA, CCI and had similar rates of malnutrition, chronic kidney disease, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and history for steroid use. Age > 70 and age <50 were not associated with one treatment group over the other (P>0.05). Compared with laminoplasty patients, laminectomy and fusion patients had increased lengths of stay (LOS) (4.5 vs 3.7 days, P<0.01) and increased rates of adverse events (41.7 vs 35.9%, P < 0.01), discharge to rehab (16.4 vs 8.6%, P < 0.01) and skilled nursing facilities (12.2 vs 9.7%, P = 0.02), and readmission (6.2 vs 4.5%, P = 0.05). Both groups experienced similar rates of death, pulmonary embolus, deep vein thrombosis, deep and superficial surgical site infection, and reoperation (P > 0.05 for all). CONCLUSIONS:Posterior cervical laminectomy and fusion patients were found to have increased LOS, readmissions, and complications despite having similar pre-op demographics and comorbidities. Patients and surgeons should consider these risks when considering surgical treatment for cervical pathology. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:3.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT/BACKGROUND:The postoperative recovery patterns of cervical deformity patients, thoracolumbar deformity patients, and patients with combined cervical and thoracolumbar deformities, all relative to one another, is not well understood. Clear, objective benchmarks are needed to quantitatively define a "good" versus a "bad" postoperative recovery across multiple follow-up visits, varying deformity types, and guide expectations. PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To objectively define and compare the complete 2-year postoperative recovery process amongst operative cervical only, thoracolumbar only, and combined deformity patients using area-under-the-curve (AUC) methodology. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING/METHODS:Retrospective review of two prospective, multicenter adult cervical and spinal deformity databases. PATIENT SAMPLE/METHODS:170 spinal deformity patients OUTCOME MEASURES: Common health-related quality of life (HRQOL) assessments across both databases included the EuroQol 5-Dimension Questionnaire (EQ5D) and Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) back pain assessment. In order to compare disability improvements, the Neck Disability Index (NDI) and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were merged into one outcome variable, the ODI-NDI. Both assessments are gauged on the same scale, with minimal question deviation. Sagittal Radiographic Alignment was also assessed at pre- and all post-operative time points. METHODS:Operative deformity patients >18 years old with baseline (BL) to 2-year HRQOLs were included. Patients were stratified by cervical only (C), thoracolumbar only (T), and combined deformities (CT). HRQOL and radiographic outcomes were compared within and between deformity groups. AUC normalization generated normalized HRQOL scores at BL and all follow-up intervals (6 weeks, -3 months, 1year, 2 year). Normalized scores were plotted against follow-up time interval. AUC was calculated for each follow-up interval, and total area was divided by cumulative follow-up length, determining overall, time-adjusted HRQOL recovery (Integrated Health State, IHS). Multiple linear regression models determined significant predictors of HRQOL discrepancies amongst deformity groups. RESULTS:0.177, p=0.039). CONCLUSIONS:Despite C patients exhibiting a quicker rate of MCID disability (ODI-NDI) improvement, they exhibited a poorer overall recovery of back pain with worse NRS back scores compared to baseline status and other deformity groups. Postoperative distal junctional kyphosis and osteoporosis were identified as primary drivers of a poor postoperative NRS back IHS. Utilization of the IHS, a single number adjusting for all postoperative HRQOL visits, in conjunction with predictive modelling may pose as an improved method of gauging the effect of surgical details and complications on a patient's entire recovery process.