Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Studies have utilized psychological questionnaires to identify the psychological distress among certain surgical populations. RESEARCH QUESTION/OBJECTIVE:Is there an additional psychological burden among patients undergoing surgical treatment for their symptomatic degenerative cervical disease? MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:Patients>18 years of age with symptomatic, degenerative cervical spine disease were included and prospectively enrolled. Correlations and multivariable logistic regression analysis assessed the relationship between these mental health components (PCS, FABQ) and the severity of disability described by the NDI, EQ-5D, and mJOA score. Patient distress scores were compared to previously published benchmarks for other diagnoses. RESULTS:). Increasing neck disability and decreasing EQ-5D were correlated with greater PCS and FABQ(all p<0.001). Patients with severe psychological distress at baseline were more likely to report severe neck disability, while physician-reported mJOA had weaker associations. Compared to historical controls of lumbar patients, patients in our study had greater levels of psychological distress, as measured by FABQ (40.0 vs 17.6;p<0.001) and PCS (27.4 vs 19.3;p<0.001). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Degenerative cervical spine patients seeking surgery were found to have a significant level of psychological distress, with a large portion reporting severe fear avoidance beliefs and catastrophizing pain at baseline. Strong correlation was seen between patient-reported functional metrics, but less so with physician-reported signs and symptoms. Additionally, this population demonstrated higher psychological burden in certain respects than previously identified benchmarks of patients with other disorders. Preoperative treatment to help mitigate this distress, impact postoperative outcomes, and should be further investigated. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Level III.

BACKGROUND:As corrective surgery for cervical deformity (CD) increases, so does the rate of complications and reoperations. To minimize suboptimal postoperative outcomes, it is important to develop a tool that allows for proper preoperative risk stratification. OBJECTIVE:To develop a prognostic utility for identification of risk factors that lead to the development of major complications and unplanned reoperations. METHODS:CD patients age 18 years or older were stratified into 2 groups based on the postoperative occurrence of a revision and/or major complication. Multivariable logistic regressions identified characteristics that were associated with revision or major complication. Decision tree analysis established cutoffs for predictive variables. Models predicting both outcomes were quantified using area under the curve (AUC) and receiver operating curve characteristics. RESULTS:A total of 109 patients with CD were included in this study. By 1 year postoperatively, 26 patients experienced a major complication and 17 patients underwent a revision. Predictive modeling incorporating preoperative and surgical factors identified development of a revision to include upper instrumented vertebrae > C5, lowermost instrumented vertebrae > T7, number of unfused lordotic cervical vertebrae > 1, baseline T1 slope > 25.3°, and number of vertebral levels in maximal kyphosis > 12 (AUC: 0.82). For developing a major complication, a model included a current smoking history, osteoporosis, upper instrumented vertebrae inclination angle < 0° or > 40°, anterior diskectomies > 3, and a posterior Smith Peterson osteotomy (AUC: 0.81). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Revisions were predicted using a predominance of radiographic parameters while the occurrence of major complications relied on baseline bone health, radiographic, and surgical characteristics.

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE:Assess changes in outcomes and surgical approaches for adult cervical deformity (ACD) surgery over time. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA/BACKGROUND:As the population ages and prevalence of cervical deformity increases, corrective surgery has been increasingly seen as a viable treatment. Dramatic surgical advancements and expansion of knowledge on this procedure have transpired over years, but the impact on cervical deformity surgery is unknown. METHODS:ACD patients (≥18 yrs) with complete baseline and up to two-year HRQL and radiographic data were included. Descriptive analysis included demographics, radiographic, and surgical details. Patients were grouped into Early(2013-2014) and Late(2015-2017) by DOS. Univariate and multivariable regression analyses were used to assess differences in surgical, radiographic, and clinical outcomes over time. RESULTS:119 cervical deformity patients met inclusion criteria. Early group consisted of 72 patients, and Late group consisted of 47. Late group had a higher CCI (1.3 vs. 0.72), more cerebrovascular disease (6% vs. 0%, both P<0.05), and no difference in age, frailty, deformity, or cervical rigidity. Controlling for baseline deformity, and age, Late group underwent fewer three-column osteotomies (OR=0.18, 95% CI:0.06-0.76, P=0.014). At last follow-up, Late group had less patients with: a moderate/high Ames horizontal modifier (71.7% vs. 88.2%), and overcorrection in PT (4.3% vs. 18.1%, both P<0.05). Controlling for baseline deformity, age, levels fused, and three-column osteotomies, Late group experienced fewer adverse events (OR =0.15, 95% CI: 0.28-0.8, P=0.03), and neurological complications (OR =0.1, 95% CI:0.012-0.87, P=0.03). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Despite a population with greater co-morbidity and associated risk, outcomes remained consistent between early and later time-periods, indicating general improvements in care. The later cohort demonstrated fewer three-column osteotomies, less suboptimal realignments and concomitant reductions in adverse events and neurologic complications. This may suggest greater facility with less invasive techniques.

BACKGROUND:Frailty is influential in determining operative outcomes, including complications, in patients with cervical deformity (CD). OBJECTIVE:To assess whether frailty status limits the highest achievable outcomes of patients with CD. METHODS:Adult patients with CD with 2-year (2Y) data included. Frailty stratification: not frail (NF) <0.2, frail (F) 0.2 to 0.4, and severely frail (SF) >0.4. Analysis of covariance established estimated marginal means based on age, invasiveness, and baseline deformity, for improvement, deterioration, or maintenance in Neck Disability Index (NDI), Modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association (mJOA), and Numerical Rating Scale Neck Pain. RESULTS:One hundred twenty-six patients with CD included 29 NF, 83 F, and 14 SF. The NF group had the highest rates of deterioration and lowest rates of improvement in cervical Sagittal Vertical Axis and horizontal gaze modifiers. Two-year improvements in NDI by frailty: NF: -11.2, F: -16.9, and SF: -14.6 (P = .524). The top quartile of NF patients also had the lowest 1-year (1Y) NDI (7.0) compared with F (11.0) and SF (40.5). Between 1Y and 2Y, 7.9% of patients deteriorated in NDI, 71.1% maintained, and 21.1% improved. Between 1Y and 2Y, SF had the highest rate of improvement (42%), while NF had the highest rate of deterioration (18.5%). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Although frail patients improved more often by 1Y, SF patients achieve most of their clinical improvement between 1 and 2Y. Frailty is associated with factors such as osteoporosis, poor alignment, neurological status, sarcopenia, and other medical comorbidities. Similarly, clinical outcomes can be affected by many factors (fusion status, number of pain generators within treated levels, integrity of soft tissues and bone, and deformity correction). Although accounting for such factors will ultimately determine whether frailty alone is an independent risk factor, these preliminary findings may suggest that frailty status affects the clinical outcomes and improvement after CD surgery.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The ACS-NSQIP and SpineSage are both easy to use and readily available online perioperative risk calculators The ACS-NSQIP calculator predicts perioperative complications after surgery, but lacks more spine-specific predictors. The SpineSage platform was developed as a tool built for predicting complications in spine surgery. While a limited number of studies have shown it be predictive of both overall and major medical complications in spine surgery, large external validation studies are limited and none have directly compared NSQIP against SpineSage in the same cohort of spine surgery patients. PURPOSE: Assess the ACS-NSQIP Risk Calculator and SpineSage informatics platform for prediction of perioperative complications in spine surgery STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective. PATIENT SAMPLE: A total of 440 patients undergoing thoracolumbar spine with or without fusion. OUTCOME MEASURES: Any complication, serious complication, pneumonia, cardiac, dural tear, SSI, UTI, VTE, reoperation, death and LOS METHODS: Each patient was entered into the ACS-NSQIP and SpineSage calculators and predicted risk for specific complications were directly compared to actual risks. Paired t-tests compared the differences between calculators and their predictability of complications. Patients were ranked based on risk predicted for each complication and the highest tertile for each was isolated. Multivariate regression controlling for age and gender was used to determine if the highest tertile for each risk calculator had predictability in complications following spine surgery.
RESULT(S): Mean LOS 4.2+3 days, EBL 444+300 mL, operative time 256+240 min, and levels instrumented 2.1+2.3. When assessing the four complications predicted by SpineSage there were significant differences in three of the four variables, as SpineSage underpredicted the risk of all and serious-complications (p.5). Both calculator tertiles were trending towards significance for major medical complications (SpineSage: OR: 2.0, [0.94-4.23], p=.073; ACS-NSQIP: OR: 1.8,[0.96-3.48],p=.067). When examining any medical risk, only ACS NSQIP had significant predictability for any medical complication (OR: 2.1, [1.3-3.3]; p=.003).
CONCLUSION(S): Similar to previous studies, the ACS-NSQIP score underpredicted most complications, with the exception of LOS and death. In contrast to previous studies, our data suggest SpineSage was not predictive of actual rates of complications. As both calculators are highly accessible and provide at least some objective perioperative risk data points, we recommend them as a guiding tool but not as an absolute endpoint for clinical decision making as they may be inaccurate and insensitive. Further, higher powered studies elucidating the findings in this study should be conducted. Additionally, the assessment of these calculators for a specific subset of patients, such as deformity, degenerative or pediatrics, can further help guide clinicians regarding the utility of these calculators for their particular patient populations. FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS: This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs.
Copyright

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Despite studies reporting the efficacy of BMP to promote surgical spinal fusion, hospital systems and third-party payors continue to deny use of BMP, claiming high cost and lack of long term follow up. PURPOSE: Perform a propensity score matched analysis of complications and cost-effectiveness for surgically treated adult spinal deformity (ASD) patients receiving BMP vs no BMP. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Prospective, multicenter, propensity score matched analysis. PATIENT SAMPLE: ASD patients enrolled into a prospective multicenter study. OUTCOME MEASURES: Numeric rating scale (NRS) back and leg pain, Scoliosis Research Society-22r questionnaire (SRS-22r), Short Form-36v2 questionnaire (SF-36), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), cost of care, cost/QALY, postoperative complications.
METHOD(S): Surgically treated ASD patients prospectively enrolled into a multicenter study from 2009-2018 were assessed for receiving BMP or NOBMP (iliac crest bone graft and allograft only) at the time of surgery. BMP and NOBMP cohorts were propensity score matched (PSM) for age, BMI, frailty, total levels fused, fusion to the pelvis, osteotomies, interbody fusion and supplemental rod use. Postoperative alignment, complications, rod fractures, patient-reported outcomes (PROMs), cost of care (based on DRG reimbursements adjusted to 2021 US dollars), were evaluated at minimum 3-year follow-up, and cost/QALY calculated at 1-,2-, and minimum 3-year follow-up.
RESULT(S): Of 888 patients, 483 (mean 4.2 years follow-up, range 2.9 to 8.8) were evaluated. Mean BMP dosage was 27.6 mg total (range 1 to 200), 2.2 mg/level posterior (range 0 to 25) and 1.7 mg/level interbody (range 0 to 18). BMP (n=407) had similar demographics, osteotomies, total and interbody levels fused, preop PROMs, follow-up duration, and pre- and postoperative spinal alignment as NOBMP (n=76; p>0.05). BMP had fewer implant failures (0.17/patient vs 0.33/patient; p 0.05). At last follow-up, BMP had better SF-36 social function (46.7 vs 43.9) and SF-36 mental component scores (51.5. vs 47.8) than NOBMP (p <0.05, respectively). BMP had lower mean total cost of care/patient ($78,679.61 vs $103,388.78) and lower cost/QALY ($22,455.48 vs $32,947.68) at last follow-up vs NOBMP, respectively (p < 0.05). Revision surgery rates were similar for BMP vs NOBMP (0.32 vs 0.42/patient, p=0.11); however, costs of revision surgery were less for BMP ($11,114.33) vs NOBMP ($22,912.53, p <0.05).
CONCLUSION(S): Propensity score matched analysis demonstrated BMP use in ASD surgery at mean 4-year follow-up was associated with decreased implant fracture rates, lower treatment costs and better cost/QALY than NOBMP. Hospital systems, administrators and third-party payors should consider that the initial cost of BMP use at index surgery may be offset by decreased total cost of care and improve cost/QALY for ASD patients. FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS: Bone morphogenetic protein: Investigational.
Copyright

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: In recent years spine surgeons have utilized different techniques and approaches to perform lumbar interbody fusion surgery. We sought to analyze the difference in outcomes between traditional open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (O-TLIF), minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF), dual position anterior/lateral lumbar interbody fusion with posterior instrumentation (Dual ALIF/LLIF), and single position anterior/lateral lumbar interbody fusion with posterior instrumentation (Single ALIF/LLIF). PURPOSE: To analyze the perioperative and postoperative outcomes of patient undergoing TLIF, MIS TLIF, Dual ALIF/LLIF, and Single ALIF/LLIF. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective cohort study at a single institution. PATIENT SAMPLE: Patients undergoing O-TLIF, MIS TLIF, Dual ALIF/LLIF, or Single ALIF/LLIF from 2014 to 2020. OUTCOME MEASURES: Operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), length of stay (LOS), radiation dose, intraoperative and postoperative complications, and return to OR within 90 days.
METHOD(S): Patients who underwent single level lumbar interbody fusion surgery were analyzed. Patient charts were reviewed for operative time, EBL, LOS, radiation dose, intraoperative and postoperative complications, and return to OR within 90 days. Differences were assessed by ANOVA.
RESULT(S): A total of 1,226 patients underwent a single level lumbar interbody fusion (440 O-TLIF, 423 MIS TLIF, 316 Dual ALIF/LLIF, 47 Single ALIF/LLIF). There were no significant differences in BMI or gender between the groups, but in the O-TLIF cohort average age (60) was higher than MIS-TLIF (54), Dual ALIF/LLIF(52), and Single ALIF/LLIF (50) p < 0.001. There were also significant differences in average operative time (221 mins O-TLIF, 212 mins MIS TLIF, 277 mins dual ALIF/LLIF, 277 mins single ALIF/LLIF, p < 0.001), EBL (360 ml O-TLIF, 167ml MIS TLIF, 235 ml Dual ALIF/LLIF, 253 ml Single ALIF/LLIF, p<0.001), radiation dose (20 mGy O-TLIF, 51 mGy MIS TLIF, 43 mGy Dual ALIF/LLIF, 62 mGy Single ALIF/LLIF, p < 0.001). There was no difference in LOS, intraoperative complications, or 90-day complications between the groups, except a higher rate of neurological deficit in dual ALIF/LLIF (1.6%, p < 0.03). Post hoc analysis demonstrated statistical significance in operative time in the Dual ALIF/LLIF as compared to all the other groups. O-TLIF demonstrated a larger EBL and less radiation as compared to all the other groups as well as a longer operative time than Single ALIF/LLIF. Dual ALIF/LLIF demonstrated a longer operative time and increased rate of neurological deficit as compared to MIS TLIF.
CONCLUSION(S): In comparing different techniques for single level lumbar interbody fusion there were similar outcomes in LOS, perioperative complications and 90-day complications between all the groups. Open TLIF was associated with increased estimate blood loss and less radiation than all the other groups Dual position ALIF/LLIF surgery was associated with a longer operative time than all the other groups. FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS: This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs.
Copyright

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Surgical intervention has been shown to be an effective treatment modality for adult cervical deformity (CD), yet patient-reported outcomes vary even when patients are optimally realigned. While patients with higher baseline disability have more room for improvement, we propose there may be a threshold beyond which greater disability limits health-related quality of life (HRQL) improvement due to elevated risks and a point of no return. PURPOSE: To assess impact of baseline disability on HRQL outcomes. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective study of prospectively enrolled CD patients in a multicenter CD database. PATIENT SAMPLE: A total of 116 CD patients were included. OUTCOME MEASURES: HRQL, neck disability index (NDI), modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association (mJOA), EuroQol-5 Dimension (EQ5D).
METHOD(S): CD patients with baseline (BL) and 2-year follow-up (2Y) were included. The cohort was ranked into quartiles by baseline NDI, from lowest/best score (Q1) to highest/worst score (Q4). Means comparison tests analyzed differences between disability groups. Multivariate Analyses (MVA) assessed differences in outcomes of interest controlling for covariates including BL deformity, HRQLs, surgical details and complications.
RESULT(S): A total of 116 patients met inclusion criteria (age: 60.97+/-10.45 yrs, BMI: 28.73+/-7.59kg/m², CCI: 0.94+/-1.31). The cohort presented with mean BL cSVA was 38.54 +/- 19.43mm, TS-CL: 37.34 +/- 19.73, and mJOA: 13.62 +/- 2.71. Surgically, patients had an average of 8.44 +/- 3.41 levels fused, with 53.5% of patients undergoing decompression and 48.3% undergoing osteotomy. Mean BL NDI and numerical rating scale (NRS) of the cohort were 48.33 +/- 17.99 and 6.74 +/- 2.48 respectively. Mean BL NDI by disability group was as follows: Q1: 25.04 +/- 8.19, Q2: 41.61 +/- 2.77, Q3: 53.31 +/- 4.32, and Q4: 69.52 +/- 8.35. MVA assessing improvement in NRS neck and NRS back, found significant differences between disability groups (both p=.007). Patients in Q2 demonstrated the greatest improvement in NRS neck at 2 years (-3.93), which was greater than those in Q3 (-1.61, p=.032) and Q4 (-1.41, p=.015). Patients in Q2 demonstrated greater improvement in NRS back at 2 years (-1.71), compared to those in Q4 (+0.84, p=.010). Rates of MCID in NRS neck were also significantly different across disability groups (p=.023). Patients in Q2 met MCID at the highest rates (69.9%) of all groups, higher than those in Q4 (30.3%), p=.039. MVA found patients in Q2 demonstrated the greatest improvement in EQ5D at 2 years (+0.082), compared to Q1 (+0.073), Q3 (+0.022), and Q4 (+0.014), p=.034. Finally, patients in Q2 demonstrated the greatest improvement in mJOA score from baseline (+1.517), p=.042.
CONCLUSION(S): Patients in Q2, with mean baseline NDI of 42, consistently demonstrated the greatest improvement in HRQLs whereas those in Q4, with mean baseline NDI of 70, saw the least improvement. Thus, baseline NDI between 39 and 44 may represent a disability "wweet spot," within which operative intervention maximizes patient reported outcomes. Furthermore, delaying intervention until patients are severely disabled, beyond an NDI of 61, limits benefits of surgical correction in cervical deformity patients. FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS: This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs.
Copyright