Faculty Bibliography

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To determine the validity and responsiveness of PROMIS metrics versus the SRS-22r questionnaire in adult spinal deformity (ASD). METHODS:Surgical ASD patients undergoing ≥ 4 levels fused with complete baseline PROMIS and SRS-22r data were included. Internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) and test-retest reliability [intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)] were compared. Cronbach's alpha and ICC values ≥ 0.70 were predefined as satisfactory. Convergent validity was evaluated via Spearman's correlations. Responsiveness was assessed via paired samples t tests with Cohen's d to assess measure of effect (baseline to 3 months). RESULTS:One hundred and ten pts are included. Mean baseline SRS-22r score was 2.62 ± 0.67 (domains = Function: 2.6, Pain: 2.5, Self-image: 2.2, Mental Health: 3.0). Mean PROMIS domains = Physical Function (PF): 12.4, Pain Intensity (PI): 91.7, Pain Interference (Int): 55.9. Cronbach's alpha, and ICC were not satisfactory for any SRS-22 and PROMIS domains. PROMIS-Int reliability was low for all SRS-22 domains (0.037-0.225). Convergent validity demonstrated strong correlation via Spearman's rho between PROMIS-PI and overall SRS-22r (- 0.61), SRS-22 Function (- 0.781), and SRS-22 Pain (- 0.735). PROMIS-PF had strong correlation with SRS-22 Function (0.643), while PROMIS-Int had moderate correlation with SRS-22 Pain (- 0.507). Effect size via Cohen's d showed that PROMIS had superior responsiveness across all domains except for self-image. CONCLUSIONS:PROMIS is a valid measure compared to SRS-22r in terms of convergent validity, and has greater measure of effect in terms of responsiveness, but failed in reliability and internal consistency. Surgeons should consider the lack of reliability and internal consistency (despite validity and responsiveness) of the PROMIS to SRS-22r before replacing the traditional questionnaire with the computer-adaptive testing.

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Single-center retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:To evaluate inpatient MME administration associated with different lumbar spinal fusion surgeries. METHODS:< .05. RESULTS:= .009). There were no significant differences in MME/hour and incidence of ileus between all groups. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Patients undergoing MIS TLIF had lower inpatient opioid intake compared to TP and SP ALIF/LLIF, as well as shorter LOS compared to all groups except SP ALIF/LLIF. Thus, it appears that the advantages of minimally invasive surgery are seen in minimally invasive TLIFs.

Abundant literature exists describing the incidence of dysphagia following anterior cervical surgery; however, there is a paucity of literature detailing the incidence of dysphagia following posterior cervical procedures. Further characterization of this complication is important for guiding clinical prevention and management. Patients ≥ 18 years of age underwent posterior cervical fusion with laminectomy or laminoplasty between C1-T1. Pre- and post-operative dysphagia was assessed by a speech language pathologist. The patient cohort was categorized by approach: Laminectomy + Fusion (LF) and Laminoplasty (LP). Patients were excluded from radiographic analyses if they did not have both baseline and follow-up imaging. The study included 147 LF and 47 LP cases. There were no differences in baseline demographics. There were three patients with new-onset dysphagia in the LF group (1.5% incidence) and no new cases in the LP group (p = 1.000). LF patients had significantly higher rates of post-op complications (27.9% LF vs. 8.5% LP, p = 0.005) but not intra-op complications (6.1% LF vs. 2.1% LP, p = 0.456). Radiographic analysis of the entire cohort showed no significant changes in cervical lordosis, cSVA, or T1 slope. Both group comparisons showed no differences in incidence of dysphagia pre and post operatively. Based on this study, the likelihood of developing dysphagia after LF or LP are similarly low with a new onset dysphagia rate of 1.5%.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) instruments have been shown to correlate with established patient outcome metrics. The aim of this retrospective study was to determine the MCID for the PROMIS physical domains of Physical Function (PF), Pain Intensity (PI), and Pain Interference (Int) in a population of surgical cervical deformity (CD) patients. METHODS:Surgical CD patients ≥ 18 years old with baseline (BL) and 3-month (3 M) HRQL data were isolated. Changes in HRQLs: ΔBL-3M. An anchor-based methodology was used. The cohort was divided into four groups: 'worse' (ΔEQ5D ≤ -0.12), 'unchanged' (≥0.12, but < -0.12), 'slightly improve' (>0.12, but ≤ 0.24), and 'markedly improved' (>0.24) [0.24 is the MCID for EQ5D]. PROMIS-PF, PI and Int at 3M was compared between 'slightly improved' and 'unchanged'. ROC computed discrete MCID values using the change in PROMIS that yielded the smallest difference between sensitivity ('slightly improved') and specificity ('unchanged'). We repeated anchor-based methods for the Ames-ISSG classification of severe deformity. RESULTS:140 patients were included. EQ5D groups: 9 patients 'worse', 53 'unchanged', 20 'slightly improved', and 57 'markedly improved'. Patients classified as 'unchanged' exhibited a PROMIS-PF improvement of 2.9 ± 17.0 and those 'slightly improved' had an average gain of 13.3 ± 17.8. ROC analysis for the PROMIS-PF demonstrated an MCID of +2.26, for PROMIS-PI of -5.5, and PROMIS-Int of -5.4. In the Ames-ISSG TS-CL severe CD modifier, ROC analysis found MCIDs of PROMIS physical domains: PF of +0.5, PI of -5.2, and Int of -5.4. CONCLUSIONS:MCID for PROMIS physical domains were established for a cervical deformity population. MCID in PROMIS Physical Function was significantly lower for patients with severe cervical deformity.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT/BACKGROUND:The COVID-19 pandemic caused nationwide suspensions of elective surgeries due to reallocation of resources to the care of COVID-19 patients. Following resumption of elective cases, a significant proportion of patients continued to delay surgery, with many yet to reschedule, potentially prolonging their pain and impairment of function and causing detrimental long-term effects. PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to examine differences between patients who have and have not rescheduled their spine surgery procedures originally cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and to evaluate the reasons for continued deferment of spine surgeries even after the lifting of the mandated suspension of elective surgeries. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING/METHODS:Retrospective case series at a single institution PATIENT SAMPLE: Included were 133 patients seen at a single institution where spine surgery was canceled due to a state-mandated suspension of elective surgeries from March to June, 2020. OUTCOME MEASURES/METHODS:The measures assessed included preoperative diagnoses and neurological dysfunction, surgical characteristics, reasons for surgery deferment, and PROMIS scores of pain intensity, pain interference, and physical function. METHODS:Patient electronic medical records were reviewed. Patients who had not rescheduled their canceled surgery as of January 31, 2021, and did not have a reason noted in their charts were called to determine the reason for continued surgery deferment. Patients were divided into three groups: early rescheduled (ER), late rescheduled (LR), and not rescheduled (NR). ER patients had a date of surgery (DOS) prior to the city's Phase 4 reopening on July 20, 2020; LR patients had a DOS on or after that date. Statistical analysis of the group findings included analysis of variance with Tukey's honestly significant difference (HSD) post-hoc test, independent samples T-test, and chi-square analysis with significance set at p≤.05. RESULTS:Out of 133 patients, 47.4% (63) were in the ER, 15.8% (21) in the LR, and 36.8% (49) in the NR groups. Demographics and baseline PROMIS scores were similar between groups. LR had more levels fused (3.6) than ER (1.6), p= .018 on Tukey HSD. NR (2.1) did not have different mean levels fused than LR or ER, both p= >.05 on Tukey HSD. LR had more three column osteotomies (14.3%) than ER and (1.6%) and NR (2.0%) p=.022, and fewer lumbar microdiscectomies (0%) compared to ER (20.6%) and NR (10.2%), p=.039. Other surgical characteristics were similar between groups. LR had a longer length of stay than ER (4.2 vs 2.4, p=.036). No patients in ER or LR had a nosocomial COVID-19 infection. Of NR, 2.0% have a future surgery date scheduled and 8.2% (4) are acquiring updated exams before rescheduling. 40.8% (20; 15.0% total cohort) continue to defer surgery over concern for COVID-19 exposure and 16.3% (8) for medical comorbidities. 6.1% (3) permanently canceled for symptom improvement. 8.2% (4) had follow-up recommendations for non-surgical management. 4.1% (2) are since deceased. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Over 1/3 of elective spine surgeries canceled due to COVID-19 have not been performed in the 8 months from when elective surgeries resumed in our institution to the end of the study. ER patients had less complex surgeries planned than LR. NR patients continue to defer surgery primarily over concern for COVID-19 exposure. The toll on the health of these patients as a result of the delay in treatment and on their lives due to their inability to return to normal function remains to be seen.

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective review of a single-center spine database. OBJECTIVE:Investigate the intersections of chronological age and physiological age via frailty to determine the influence of surgical invasiveness on patient outcomes. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA/BACKGROUND:Frailty is a well-established factor in preoperative risk stratification and prediction of postoperative outcomes. The surgical profile of operative adult spinal deformity (ASD) patients who present as elderly and not frail has yet to be investigated. Our aim was to examine the surgical profile and outcomes of ASD patients who were not frail and elderly. METHODS:Included: ASD patients≥18 years old, ≥4 levels fused, with baseline(BL) and follow up data. Patients were categorized by ASD frailty index: Not Frail[NF], Frail[F], Severely Frail [SF]. An elderly patient was defined as ≥70 years. Patients were grouped into NF/elderly and F/elderly. SRS-Schwab modifiers were assessed at baseline and 1-year(0, +, ++). Logistic regression analysis assessed the relationship between increasing invasiveness, no reoperations, or major complications, and improvement in SRS-Schwab modifiers[Good Outcome]. Decision tree analysis assessed thresholds for an invasiveness risk/benefit cutoff point. RESULTS:598 ASD pts included(55.3yrs, 59.7%F, 28.3 kg/m2). 29.8% of patients were above age 70. At baseline, 51.3% of patients were NF, 37.5% F, and 11.2% SF. 66(11%) of patients were NF and elderly. 24.2% of NF-Elderly patients improved in SRS-Schwab by 1-year and had no reoperation or complication postoperatively. Binary regression analysis found a relationship between worsening SRS-Schwab, postop complication, and reoperation with invasiveness score(OR: 1.056[1.013-1.102], p = 0.011). Risk/benefit cut-off was 10(p = 0.004). Patients below this threshold were 7.9[2.2-28.4] times more likely to have a Good Outcome. 156 patients were elderly and F/SF with 16.7% having Good Outcome, with a risk/benefit cut-off point of <8 (4.4[2.2-9.0], p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS:Frailty status impacted the balance of surgical invasiveness relative to operative risk in an inverse manner, while the opposite was seen amongst elderly patients with a frailty status less than their chronologic age. Surgeons should perhaps consider incorporation of frailty status over age status when determining realignment plans in patients of advanced age.Level of Evidence: ???

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective cohort analysis. OBJECTIVE:To compare outcomes of plastic versus spine surgeon wound closure in revision 1 to 4 level thoracolumbar fusions. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA/BACKGROUND:Plastic surgeons perform layered musculocutaneous flap closures in high-risk spine patients such as revision posterior spinal fusion and complex deformity correction surgeries. Few studies have assessed outcomes of revision fusion performed with plastic surgical closures, particularly in nondeformity thoracolumbar spinal surgery. METHODS:A retrospective review of 1 to 4 level revision thoracolumbar fusion performed by Orthopedic or Neurosurgical spine surgeons. Patient charts were reviewed for demographics and perioperative outcomes. Patients were divided into two cohorts: wound closures performed by spine surgeons and those closed by plastic surgeons. Outcomes were analyzed before and after propensity score match for prior levels fused, iliac fixation, and levels fused at index surgery. Significance was set at P < 0.05. RESULTS:Three hundred fifty-seven (87.3%) spine surgeon (SS) and 52 (12.7%) plastic surgeon (PS) closures were identified. PS group had significantly higher number of levels fused at index (PS 2.7 ± 1.0 vs. SS 1.8 ± 0.9, P < 0.001) and at prior surgeries (PS 1.8 ± 1.2 vs. SS 1.0 ± 0.9, P < 0.001), and rate of iliac instrumentation (PS 17.3% vs. SS 2.8%, P < 0.001). Plastics closure was an independent risk factor for length of stay  > 5 days (odds ratio 2.3) and postoperative seroma formation (odds ratio 7.8). After propensity score match, PS had higher rates of seromas (PS 36.5% vs. SS 3.8%, P < 0.001). There were no differences between PS and SS groups in surgical outcomes, perioperative complication, surgical site infection, seroma requiring aspiration, or return to operating room at all time points until follow-up (P > 0.05 for all). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Plastic spinal closure for 1 to 4 level revision posterior thoracolumbar fusions had no advantage in reducing wound complications over spine surgeon closure but increased postoperative seroma formation.Level of Evidence: 4.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The inter-relationship between the hip and spine has been increasingly studied in recent years, particularly as it pertains to the effect of spinal deformity and hip osteoarthritis (OA). Changing from standing (ST) to seated (SE) requires rotation of the femur from an almost vertical plane to the horizontal. OA of the hip significantly limits hip extension, resulting in less ability to recruit pelvic tilt (PT) in ST, and requiring increased PT in SE to compensate for loss of hip flexion. To date, the effect of total hip arthroplasty (THA) in altering spinopelvic SE and ST mechanics has not been reported. PURPOSE: To investigate the change in spinopelvic alignment parameters between seated and standing positions in pre and post THA patients. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective review at a single academic institution. PATIENT SAMPLE: Adult patients undergoing THA with full body sitting and standing radiographs pre- and post-THA. OUTCOME MEASURES: Spinopelvic alignment measures including pelvic incidence (PI), pelvic tilt (PT), T1 pelvic angle (TPA), sacral slope (SS), sagittal vertical axis (SVA), pelvic incidence and lumbar lordosis mismatch (PI-LL), and lumbar lordosis (LL).
METHOD(S): Patients >=18yo undergoing THA for hip OA with full spine SE and ST radiographs pre and post THA were included. Spinopelvic alignment was analyzed pre-THA and post-THA in both ST and SE positions in a relaxed posture with the fingers on the clavicles. Paired t-test analysis was performed to compare Pre-and Post-THA groups. The effect of TL deformity (SVA>50, TPA>20, PI-LL>10) on these changes was also analyzed. Statistical significance set at p<0.05.
RESULT(S): There were 192 patients assessed. 179 patients had thoracolumbar (TL) deformity; TPA>20 (N=46), PI-LL>10 (N=55), and SVA>50 (N=78). In standing position, patients have a significant reduction in SVA post THA vs pre THA (34.09+/-42.69 vs 45.03+/-46.87, p=0.001) as a result of an increase in PT (15.7+/-9.74 o vs 14.6+/-9.88o,p=0.028), without significant changes in spinal alignment parameters including lumbar lordosis (-51.26+/-14.59 vs -50.26+/-14.87, p=0.092), thoracic kyphosis (35.98+/-12.72 vs 35.40+/-13.16, p=0.180), sacral slope (38.15+/-10.77 vs 38.83+/-11.31, p=0.205), T1 pelvic angle (14.22+/-9.94 vs 14.51+/-10.13, p=0.053) and PI-LL mismatch (2.59+/-14.61 vs 3.35+/-14.92, p=0.183). This change in ST_SVA was larger in patients with TL deformity, specifically in those with SVA>50 (61.29+/-45.69 vs 89.48+/-35.91, p=0.001), in PI-LL > 10 (59.08+/-45.49 vs 73.36+/-48.50, p=0.001) and in TPA>20 subsets (62.14+/-49.94 vs 82.28+/-49.55, p=0.001). When moving from ST to SE, the DELTAPT was reduced post THA (16.70+/-15.27o vs 20.85+/-17.27o, p=0.001) in addition to a smaller SE_PT vs pre-THA (32.41+/-14.47 vs 35.46+/-14.20, p=0.006).
CONCLUSION(S): Post Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA), patients demonstrated an increased recruitment of pelvic retroversion to achieve a better global balance by reduction in standing SVA. This compensation was achieved solely by greater mobility of their hip and pelvis, and without a significant change in spinal alignment. ST_SVA reduction was more pronounced in patients with thoracolumbar (TL) spinal deformity (SVA>50, TPA>20, PI-LL>10). On the converse, PT was reduced in sitting (SE) post-THA compared to pre-THA, and the compensatory change in PT was also reduced between ST and SE as a result of restoration of hip flexion. FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS: This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs.
Copyright

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Robot-guided lumbar instrumented fusion (RGLF) has the potential to improve safety and accuracy of pedicle screw placement. However, there are pitfalls in adopting this new technology and, as in adopting any new OR technology, there may be early complications. Optimizing workflow by avoiding interbody placement prior to pedicle screws placement (interbody-first workflow, IFW) and using caution in patients with poor bone quality (L1 Hounsfield units [HU] under 148) may improve outcomes. PURPOSE: To determine risk factors for robot-related complications and suggest optimal OR workflow. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Single-center retrospective study. PATIENT SAMPLE: A total of 344 RGLF cases from 2018 to 2021. OUTCOME MEASURES: L1 and UIV HU, levels fused, L5-S1 inclusion, interbody placed first workflow (IFW), hyperlordotic interbody, robot registration method, robot registration failure, intraoperative robot mechanical failures and pedicle screw malpositioning.
METHOD(S): Retrospective analysis of RGLFs at a single institution. Univariate analysis with t-tests, Mann-Whitney U tests, or chi-squared analysis assessed demographics, L1 and UIV HU, levels fused, L5-S1 inclusion, IFW, hyperlordotic cage, and robot registration method as risk factors for robot registration failure, intraoperative robot mechanical failures, and pedicle screw malpositioning. Multivariate logistic regression of risk factors approaching or achieving significance was conducted. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was created to determine a threshold for independent risk factors.
RESULT(S): A total of 344 RGLFs were included. In registered vs registration failure cases, smoking (12.73% vs 28.57%; p=0.041), L1HU (139.81+/-46.86 vs 177.16+/-55.74; p=0.009), L5-S1 inclusion (50.00% vs 80.95%; p=0.006), and IFW (58.07% vs 85.71%; p=0.014) were significant risk factors on univariate analysis. On multivariate analysis, smoking (p=0.003), L1HU (p=0.006), and L5-S1 inclusion (p=0.022) were independent risk factors and IFW approached significance (p=0.099) for risk of registration failure. In successful vs all robot failures cases, age (55.72+/-13.38 vs 59.92+/-11.38 years; p=0.046), female gender (48.70% vs 69.44%; p=0.018), levels fused (1.37+/-0.63 vs 1.67+/-0.76; p=0.010), L5-S1 inclusion (50.00% vs 69.44%; p=0.027), and IFW (57.47% vs 77.78%; p=0.012) were significant risk factors on univariate analysis. On multivariate analysis, female gender (p=0.047) and L5-S1 inclusion (p=0.049) were independent risk factors and IFW approached significance (p=0.055) for risk of mechanical failure. In successful vs pedicle screw malpositioned cases, IFW was a significant independent risk factor for pedicle screw malpositioning on multivariate analysis (p=0.038). On subanalysis of 124 robot-guided anterior-posterior lumbar fusion (RG APLF), L1 HU was an independent risk factors for registration failure (p=0.007) and approached significance for mechanical failures (p=0.051). ROC analysis revealed a cutoff of L1 HU of 148.55 for mechanical failures (area under the curve = 0.778). Levels fused (1.41+/-0.69 vs 2.00+/-0.54; p=0.018) was a significant risk factor for pedicle screw malpositioning on univariate analysis.
CONCLUSION(S): In all RGLFs, IFW was a risk factor for robot-related complications. In RG APLF, low L1 HU was a risk factor. Robot-related complications may be avoided by placing pedicle screws prior to interbody and by using caution in patients with poor bone quality. FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS: This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs.
Copyright

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective cohort analysis. OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to compare postoperative outcomes of Coflex interspinous device versus laminectomy. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA/BACKGROUND:Coflex Interlaminar Stabilization device (CID) is indicated for one- or two-level lumbar stenosis with grade 1 stable spondylolisthesis in adult patients, as an alternative to laminectomy, or laminectomy and fusion. CID provides stability against progressive spondylolisthesis, retains motion, and prevents further disc space collapse. METHODS:Patients ≥18 years' old with lumbar stenosis and grade 1 stable spondylolisthesis who underwent either primary single-level decompression and implantation of CID, or single-level laminectomy alone were included with a minimum 90-day follow-up at a single academic institution. Clinical characteristics, perioperative outcomes, and postoperative complications were reviewed until the latest follow-up. χ2 and independent samples t tests were used for analysis. RESULTS:Eighty-three patients (2007-2019) were included: 37 cases of single-level laminectomy (48.6% female) were compared to 46 single-level CID (50% female). CID cohort was older (CID 69.0 ± 9.4 vs. laminectomy 64.2 ± 11.0, P = 0.042) and had higher American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade (CID 2.59 ± 0.73 vs. laminectomy 2.17 ± 0.48, P = 0.020). CID patients had higher estimated blood loss (EBL) (97.50 ± 77.76 vs. 52.84 ± 50.63 mL, P = 0.004), longer operative time (141.91 ± 47.88 vs. 106.81 ± 41.30 minutes, P = 0.001), and longer length of stay (2.0 ± 1.5 vs. 1.1 ± 1.0 days, P = 0.001). Total perioperative complications (21.7% vs. 5.4%, P = 0.035) and instrumentation-related complication was higher in CID (10.9% vs. 0% laminectomy group, P = 0.039). There were no other significant differences between the groups in demographics or outcomes. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Single-level CID devices had higher perioperative 90-day complications, longer operative time, length of stay, higher EBL compared to laminectomies alone. Similar overall revision and neurologic complication rates were noted compared to laminectomy at last follow-up.Level of Evidence: 3.