Faculty Bibliography

Background: Identify the external applicability of the American College of Surgeons"™ National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) risk calculator in the setting of adult spinal deformity (ASD) and subsets of patients based on deformity and frailty status. Methods: ASD patients were isolated in our single-center database and analyzed for the shared predictive variables displayed in the NSQIP calculator. Patients were stratified by frailty (not frail <0.03, frail 0.3"“0.5, severely frail >0.5), deformity [T1 pelvic angle (TPA) > 30, pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis (PI-LL) > 20], and reoperation status. Brier scores were calculated for each variable to validate the calculator"™s predictability in a single center"™s database (Quality). External validity of the calculator in our ASD patients was assessed via Hosmer-Lemeshow test, which identified whether the differences between observed and expected proportions are significant. Results: A total of 1606 ASD patients were isolated from the Quality database (48.7 years, 63.8% women, 25.8 kg/m²); 33.4% received decompressions, and 100% received a fusion. For each subset of ASD patients, the calculator predicted lower outcome rates than what was identified in the Quality database. The calculator showed poor predictability for frail, deformed, and reoperation patients for the category "any complication" because they had Brier scores closer to 1. External validity of the calculator in each stratified patient group identified that the calculator was not valid, displaying P values >0.05. Conclusion: The NSQIP calculator was not a valid calculator in our single institutional database. It is unable to comment on surgical complications such as return to operating room, surgical site infection, urinary tract infection, and cardiac complications that are typically associated with poor patient outcomes. Physicians should not base their surgical plan solely on the NSQIP calculator but should consider multiple preoperative risk assessment tools.

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective analysis of outcomes in cervical spine and shoulder arthroscopy patients. OBJECTIVE:The objective of this study is to assess differential improvements in health-related quality of life for cervical spine surgery compared with shoulder surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA/BACKGROUND:An understanding of outcome differences between different types of orthopedic surgeries is helpful in counseling patients about expected postoperative recovery. This study compares outcomes in patients undergoing cervical spine surgery with arthroscopic shoulder surgery using computer-adaptive Patient-reported Outcome Information System scores. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:Patients undergoing cervical spine surgery (1-level or 2-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, cervical disc replacement) or arthroscopic shoulder surgery (rotator cuff repair±biceps tenodesis) were grouped. Patient-reported Outcome Information System scores of physical function, pain interference, and pain intensity at baseline and at 3, 6, and 12 months were compared using paired t tests. RESULTS:Cervical spine (n=127) and shoulder (n=91) groups were similar in sex (25.8% vs. 41.8% female, P=0.731) but differed in age (51.6±11.6 vs. 58.60±11.2, P<0.05), operative time (148.3±68.6 vs. 75.9±26.9 min, P<0.05), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASAs) (2.3±0.6 vs. 2.0±0.5, P=0.001), smoking status (15.7% vs. 4.4%, P=0.008), and length of stay (1.1±1.0 vs. 0.3±0.1, P=0.000). Spine patients had worse physical function (36.9 ±12.6 vs. 49.4±8.6, P<0.05) and greater pain interference (67.0±13.6 vs. 61.7±4.8, P=0.001) at baseline. Significant improvements were seen in all domains by 3 months for both groups, except for physical function after shoulder surgery. Spine patients had greater physical function improvements at all timepoints (3.33 vs. -0.43, P=0.003; 4.81 vs. 0.08, P=0.001; 6.5 vs. -5.24, P=<0.05). Conversely, shoulder surgery patients showed better 6-month improvement in pain intensity over spine patients (-8.86 vs. -4.46, P=0.001), but this difference resolved by 12 months. CONCLUSIONS:Cervical spine patients had greater relative early improvement in physical function compared with shoulder patients, whereas pain interference and intensity did not significantly differ between the 2 groups after surgery. This will help in counseling patients about relative difference in recovery and improvement between the 2 surgery types. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:III.

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:. DESCRIPTION/UNASSIGNED:This procedure is performed with the patient under general anesthesia and in a prone position. The appropriate spinal level is identified with use of fluoroscopy, and bilateral paramidline approaches are made utilizing the Wiltse intermuscular approach. Pedicle screws are placed bilaterally. A pedicle-based retractor or tubular retractor is passed along the Wiltse plane, and bilateral inferior facetectomies are performed. A foraminotomy is performed, including a superior facetectomy on the side with compression of the exiting nerve root. A thorough discectomy with end-plate preparation is performed. The disc space is sized with use of trial components. The cage is then implanted with a pre-expansion height less than the trialed height and is expanded under fluoroscopy. After expansion, the cage is backfilled with allograft and local autograft. Finally, the rods are contoured and reduced bilaterally, followed by closure in a multilayered approach. ALTERNATIVES/UNASSIGNED:. RATIONALE/UNASSIGNED:Expandable cages are designed to be inserted in a collapsed configuration and expanded once placed into the interbody space. This design offers numerous potential advantages over static alternatives. The low-profile, expandable cages require less impaction during placement, minimizing iatrogenic end-plate damage. Additionally, expandable cages require less thecal and nerve-root retraction and provide a larger surface footprint once expanded. EXPECTED OUTCOMES/UNASSIGNED:. The results for expandable cages compared with traditional static cages in TLIF surgery require further study. IMPORTANT TIPS/UNASSIGNED:The technique utilized during insertion and placement of interbody cages plays an important role in cage subsidence. To reduce the risk of cage subsidence, cages should be placed level with the end plate and in contact with the apophyseal ring anteriorly. Additionally, caution should be taken when expanding the cage to ensure that the cage is not overexpanded, which may also increase the risk of mechanical failure and intraoperative subsidence.It is critical to understand the flexibility of the disc space and the osseous quality of the patient in order to know how much expansion may be applied through the cage without subsidence.If bullet-type cages are utilized, the tip of the cage should cross midline of the vertebral body to avoid generating iatrogenic scoliosis.Spine bone density should be investigated preoperatively in at-risk patients in order to identify osteoporotic patients, who are at greater risk for subsidence and instrumentation failure.Although advances in device technology are welcomed, surgeons should maintain a strong focus on technique to reduce complications and improve clinical outcomes when utilizing expandable cages. ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS/UNASSIGNED:TLIF = transforaminal lumbar interbody fusionMIS = minimally invasive surgeryALIF = anterior lumbar interbody fusionMRI = magnetic resonance imagingCT = computed tomographyPEEK = polyetheretherketoneAP = anterioposteriorEMG = electromyographyDVT = deep vein thrombosisPE = pulmonary embolusODI = Oswestry Disability IndexEXP = expandable.

Accurate and reproducible acetabular component positioning is among the most important technical factors affecting outcomes of total hip arthroplasty. Although several studies have investigated the influence of pelvic tilt and obliquity on functional acetabular anteversion, the effect of pelvic axial rotation has not yet been established. We analyzed a generic simulated pelvis created using preoperative full-body standing and sitting radiographs. A virtual acetabulum was placed in 144 different scenarios of acetabular anteversion and abduction angles. In each scenario, the effects of pelvic tilt and pelvic axial rotation on different combinations of acetabular orientations were assessed. The change in acetabular anteversion was 0.75° for each 1° of pelvic tilt and was most linear in abduction angles of 40°±45°. The change in acetabular anteversion was 0.8° for each 1° of pelvic axial rotation. Surgeons may consider adjusting acetabular anteversion in fixed axial pelvic deformities when the degree of deformity affects functional acetabular positioning, assessed from preoperative standing and sitting weight-bearing radiographs. [Orthopedics. 2023;46(1):e27-e30.].

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Single position surgery has demonstrated to reduce hospital length of stay, operative times, blood loss, postoperative pain, ileus, and complications. ALIF and LLIF surgeries offer advantages of placing large interbody devices under direct compression and can be performed by a minimally invasive approach in the lateral position. Furthermore, simultaneous access to the anterior and posterior column is possible in the lateral position without the need for patient repositioning. The purpose of this study is to outline the anatomical and technical considerations for performing anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) in the lateral decubitus position. METHODS:Surgical technique and technical considerations for reconstruction of the anterior column in the lateral position by ALIF at the L4-5 and L5-S1 levels. RESULTS:Topics outlined in this review include: Operating room layout and patient positioning; surgical anatomy and approach; vessel mobilization and retractor placement for L4-5 and L5-S1 lateral ALIF exposure, in addition to comparative technique of disc space preparation, trialing and implant placement compared to the supine ALIF procedure. CONCLUSIONS:Anterior exposure performed in the lateral decubitus position allows safe-, minimally invasive access and implant placement in ALIF. The approach requires less peritoneal and vessel retraction than in a supine position, in addition to allowing simultaneous access to the anterior and posterior columns when performing 360° Anterior-Posterior fusion.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Prone LLIF (P-LLIF) is a novel technique allowing for placement of a lateral interbody in the prone position and allowing posterior decompression and revision of posterior instrumentation without repositioning. To date, studies evaluating the P-LLIF have been small single surgeon series. This multicentre retrospective cohort examines perioperative outcomes and complications of single position P-LLIF againsttraditional Lateral LLIF (L-LLIF) technique with patient repositioning in patients undergoing revision lumbar fusion surgery. PURPOSE: To evaluate the feasibility and safety of the single-position P-LLIF technique for revision lumbar fusion surgery. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Multicenter retrospective cohort study. PATIENT SAMPLE: A total of 101 patients undergoing revision circumferential fusion with lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) were included, of which 43 had P-LLIF and 58 had L-LLIF. OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcome measures included levels fused, operative time, estimated blood loss and perioperative complications. Radiographic analysis included lumbar lordosis (LL), pelvic incidence (PI), pelvic tilt (PT), PI-LL mismatch and segmental lumbar lordosis.
METHOD(S): A multicenter retrospective cohort study was performed from 4 institutions from the USA and Australia of patients undergoing revision anterior-posterior lumbar fusion via either: 1) single-position prone LLIF (P-LLIF); or 2) lateral decubitus LLIF with repositioning to prone (L-LLIF) between January 2015 and November 2021. Patients with greater than 4 levels fused were excluded. Demographics, perioperative outcomes, complications and radiological outcomes were compared using independent samples t-tests and chi-squared analyses as appropriate with significance set at p<0.05.
RESULT(S): A total of 101 patients undergoing revision lateral lumbar interbody fusion surgery were included, of which 43 had P-LLIF and 58 had L-LLIF. Age, BMI and CCI were similar between groups. The number of posterior levels fused (2.21 P-LLIF vs 2.66 L-LLIF, p=0.469) and interbody levels fused (1.23 P-LLIF vs 1.25 L-LLIF, p=0.838) were similar between groups. Levels decompressed, posterior column osteotomy and anterior column release were similar between groups. Operative time was significantly less in the P-LLIF group compared to the L-LLIF group (151 vs 206 min, p=0.004). EBL was similar between groups (150 mL P-LLIF vs 182 mL L-LLIF, p=0.31) and there was a trend toward reduced length of stay (2.7 vs 3.3 days, p=0.09). No significant difference was demonstrated in perioperative or postoperative complications between P-LLIF and L-LLIF groups. Radiographic analysis demonstrated no significant differences in preoperative or postoperative sagittal alignment as measured by lumbar lordosis, PI-LL mismatch, or segmental lumbar lordosis between groups.
CONCLUSION(S): P-LLIF significantly improves operative efficiency and may reduce length of stay when compared to L-LLIF and repositioning for revision lumbar fusion. No increase in complications was demonstrated by P-LLIF or trade-offs in sagittal alignment restoration. FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS: This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs.
Copyright

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:This study compares perioperative and 1-year outcomes of lateral decubitus single position circumferential fusion (L-SPS) versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF) for degenerative pathologies. METHODS:Multicenter retrospective chart review of patients undergoing AP fusion with L-SPS or MIS TLIF. Demographics and clinical and radiographic outcomes were compared using independent samples t tests and chi-squared analyses with significance set at p < 0.05. RESULTS:A total of 445 patients were included: 353 L-SPS, 92 MIS TLIF. The L-SPS cohort was significantly older with fewer diabetics and more levels fused. The L-SPS cohort had significantly shorter operative time, blood loss, radiation dosage, and length of stay compared to MIS TLIF. 1-year follow-up showed that the L-SPS cohort had higher rates of fusion (97.87% vs. 81.11%; p = 0.006) and lower rates of subsidence (6.38% vs. 38.46%; p < 0.001) compared with MIS TLIF. There were significantly fewer returns to the OR within 1 year for early mechanical failures with L-SPS (0.0% vs. 5.4%; p < 0.001). 1-year radiographic outcomes revealed that the L-SPS cohort had a greater LL (56.6 ± 12.5 vs. 51.1 ± 15.9; p = 0.004), smaller PI-LL mismatch (0.2 ± 13.0 vs. 5.5 ± 10.5; p = 0.004). There were no significant differences in amount of change in VAS scores between cohorts. Similar results were seen after propensity-matched analysis and sub-analysis of cases including L5-S1. CONCLUSIONS:L-SPS improves perioperative outcomes and does not compromise clinical or radiographic results at 1-year follow-up compared with MIS TLIF. There may be decreased rates of early mechanical failure with L-SPS.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To describe a comprehensive setting of the different alternatives for performing a single position fusion surgery based on the opinion of leading surgeons in the field. METHODS:Between April and May of 2021, a specifically designed two round survey was distributed by mail to a group of leaders in the field of Single Position Surgery (SPS). The questionnaire included a variety of domains which were focused on highlighting tips and recommendations regarding improving the efficiency of the performance of SPS. This includes operation room setting, positioning, use of technology, approach, retractors specific details, intraoperative neuromonitoring and tips for inserting percutaneous pedicle screws in the lateral position. It asked questions focused on Lateral Single Position Surgery (LSPS), Lateral ALIF (LA) and Prone Lateral Surgery (PLS). Strong agreement was defined as an agreement of more than 80% of surgeons for each specific question. The number of surgeries performed in SPS by each surgeon was used as an indirect element to aid in exhibiting the expertise of the surgeons being surveyed. RESULTS:Twenty-four surgeons completed both rounds of the questionnaire. Moderate or strong agreement was found for more than 50% of the items. A definition for Single Position Surgery and a step-by-step recommendation workflow was built to create a better understanding of surgeons who are starting the learning curve in this technique. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:A recommendation of the setting for performing single position fusion surgery procedure (LSPS, LA and PLS) was developed based on a survey of leaders in the field.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Previous literature has demonstrated the advantages of lateral single position surgery (L-SPS) in the perioperative period; however, 2-year postoperative outcomes of this novel technique have not yet been compared to circumferential anterior-posterior fusion (FLIP) at 2-years postoperatively. PURPOSE: Evaluate the feasibility and safety of L-SPS technique against the conventional FLIP. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Multi-center retrospective cohort study. PATIENT SAMPLE: Patients undergoing primary AP (ALIF or LLIF) fusions with bilateral percutaneous pedicle screw fixation between L2-S1 with minimum 2-year followup at three institutions. OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcome measures included levels fused, operative time, estimated blood loss and perioperative complications. Radiographic analysis included lumbar lordosis (LL), pelvic incidence (PI), pelvic tilt (PT), PI-LL mismatch and segmental lumbar lordosis.
METHOD(S): Patients were grouped as L-SPS if anterior and posterior portions of the procedure were performed in the lateral decubitus position, and FLIP if patients were repositioned from supine or lateral to prone position for the posterior portion of the procedure. Groups were compared in terms of demographics, intraoperative, perioperative and radiological outcomes, complications and reoperations up to 2 years follow-up. Measures were compared using independent samples or paired t-tests and chi-squared analyses with significance set at p<0.05.
RESULT(S): A total of 442 pts met inclusion, including 352 L-SPS and 90 FLIP pts. Significant differences were noted in age (62.4 vs. 56.9; p= < 0.001) and smoking status (7% vs. 16%; p=0.023) between the L-SPS and FLIP groups. No differences between L-SPS and FLIP were noted in gender (57.4% female vs 57.8% female, p=1.000), BMI (30.0kg/m2 vs 29.3kg/m2; p=0.318). No differences were noted in number of levels fused between L-SPS and FLIP (1.45vs 1.50; p=0.533), proportion including ALIF (38% vs 39%; p=0.809), or the proportion of surgeries including L5-S1 (38%vs 31%; p=0.222). Perioperative outcomes: L-SPS demonstrated significantly lower Op time (97.7min vs 297.0 min; p < 0.001), fluoro dose (36.5mGy vs 78.8mGy; p < 0.001), EBL (88.8mL vs 270.0mL; p < 0.001), and LOS (1.91 days vs. 3.61 days; p < 0.001) compared to FLIP. L-SPS also demonstrated significantly fewer post-op complications than FLIP (21.9% vs 34.4%; p=0.013), specifically regarding rates of ileus (0.0% vs 5.6%; p < 0.001). There was no difference in remaining surgical site, neurological, or medical complications between groups. Reoperation: N=no differences in reoperation were noted at 30-day (1.7%L-SPS vs 4.4%FLIP, p=0.125), 90-day (5.1%L-SPS vs 5.6%FLIP, p=0.795) or 2-year follow-up (9.7%L-SPS vs 12.2%FLIP; p=0.441). The most common reason for return to OR was Adjacent Segment Disease, (L-SPS 3.1% vs. FLIP 7.8%; p=0.067). Pseudarthrosis rates were similar between groups (0.0%L-SPS vs. 1.1%FLIP; p=0.204). Radiological Outcomes: no significant differences were noted in rates of radiological fusion (94.3% L-SPS vs 97.8%FLIP; p=0.266) or subsidence (6.9%L-SPS vs 12.2%FLIP; p=0.260). There were no differences noted between L-SPS and FLIP in change in LL from Baseline to 1-year (3.5 vs 2.8; p=0.466) and post-op to 1yr (-0.18 vs -0.51; p=0.777), or in PI-LL from Baseline to 1-year (-3.5 vs -3.2; p=0.835) and from post-op to 1-year (0.71 vs 0.71; 0.998).
CONCLUSION(S): L-SPS improves safety, improves operative efficiency and reduces complications in the perioperative period while maintaining similar efficacy of AP fusion at 2-year followup in treating degenerative lumbar spinal conditions. FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS: This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs.
Copyright

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Circumferential (AP) lumbar fusion surgery is an effective treatment for degenerative and deformity conditions of the spine. The lateral decubitus position allows for simultaneous access to the anterior and posterior aspects of the spine, enabling instrumentation of both columns without the need for patient repositioning. This paper seeks to outline the anatomical and patient-related considerations in anterior column reconstruction of the lumbar spine from L1-S1 in the lateral decubitus position. METHODS:We detail the anatomic considerations of the lateral ALIF, transpsoas, and anterior-to-psoas surgical approaches from surgeon experience and comprehensive literature review. RESULTS:Single-position AP surgery allows simultaneous access to the anterior and posterior column and may combine ALIF, LLIF, and minimally invasive posterior instrumentation techniques from L1-S1 without patient repositioning. Careful history, physical examination, and imaging review optimize safety and efficacy of lateral ALIF or LLIF surgery. An excellent understanding of patient spinal and abdominal anatomy is necessary. Each approach has relative advantages and disadvantages according to the disc level, skeletal, vascular, and psoas anatomy. CONCLUSIONS:A development of a framework to analyze these factors will result in improved patient outcomes and a reduction in complications for lateral ALIF, transpsoas, and anterior-to-psoas surgeries.