Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Spinal surgery is associated with an inherently elevated risk profile, and thus far there has been limited discussion about how these outpatient spine patients are benefiting from these same-day procedures against other typical outpatient orthopedic surgeries. METHODS:Orthopedic patients who received either inpatient or outpatient surgery were isolated in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality of Improvement Program (2005-2016). Patients were stratified by type of orthopedic surgery received (spine, knee, ankle, shoulder, or hip). Mean comparisons and chi-squared tests assessed basic demographics. Perioperative complications were analyzed via regression analyses in regard to their principal inpatient or outpatient orthopedic surgery received. RESULTS:< .05) with complications decreasing for IN and OUT patients by 2016. CONCLUSIONS:Over the past decade, spine surgery has decreased in complications for IN and OUT procedures along with IN/OUT knee, ankle, hip, and shoulder procedures, reflecting greater tolerance for risk in an outpatient setting. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:3. CLINICAL RELEVANCE/CONCLUSIONS:Despite the increase in riskier spine procedures, complications have decreased over the years. Surgeons should aim to continue to decrease inpatient spine complications to the level of other orthopedic surgeries.

BACKGROUND:Surgical site infections are common and costly complications after spine surgery. Prophylactic antibiotics are the standard of care; however, the appropriate duration of antibiotics has yet to be adequately addressed. We sought to determine whether the duration of antibiotic administration (preoperatively only versus preoperatively and for 24 hours postoperatively) impacts postoperative infection rates. METHODS:All patients undergoing inpatient spinal procedures at a single institution from 2011 to 2018 were evaluated for inclusion. A minimum of 1 year of follow-up was used to adequately capture postoperative infections. The 1:1 nearest-neighbor propensity score matching technique was used between patients who did and did not receive postoperative antibiotics, and multivariable logistic regression analysis was conducted to control for confounding. RESULTS:A total of 4,454 patients were evaluated and, of those, 2,672 (60%) received 24 hours of postoperative antibiotics and 1,782 (40%) received no postoperative antibiotics. After propensity-matched analysis, there was no difference between patients who received postoperative antibiotics and those who did not in terms of the infection rate (1.8% compared with 1.5%). No significant decrease in the odds of postoperative infection was noted in association with the use of postoperative antibiotics (odds ratio = 1.17; 95% confidence interval, 0.620 to 2.23; p = 0.628). Additionally, there was no observed increase in the risk of Clostridium difficile infection or in the short-term rate of infection with multidrug-resistant organisms. CONCLUSIONS:There was no difference in the rate of surgical site infections between patients who received 24 hours of postoperative antibiotics and those who did not. Additionally, we found no observable risks, such as more antibiotic-resistant infections and C. difficile infections, with prolonged antibiotic use. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT/BACKGROUND:Numerous advances have been made in the field of spine fusion, such as minimally invasive (MIS) or robotic-assisted spine surgery. However, it is unknown how these advances have impacted the cost of care. PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Compare the economic outcomes of lumbar spine fusion between open, MIS, and robot-assisted surgery patients. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING/METHODS:Retrospective review of a single center spine surgery database. PATIENT SAMPLE/METHODS:360 propensity matched patients. OUTCOME MEASURES/METHODS:Costs, EuroQol-5D (EQ5D), cost per quality adjusted life years (QALY). METHODS:Inclusion criteria: surgical patients >18 years undergoing lumbar fusion surgery. Patients were categorized into 3 groups based on procedure type: open, MIS, or robotic. Open patients undergoing poster spinal fusion were considered as the control group. MIS patients included those undergoing transforaminal or lateral lumbar interbody fusion with percutaneous screws. Robotic patients were those undergoing robot-assisted fusion. Propensity score matching was performed between all groups for the number of levels fused. Costs were calculated using the PearlDiver database, which reflects both private insurance and Medicare reimbursement claims for ICD-9 codes. For robotic cases, costs were reflective of operational fees and initial purchase cost. Complications and comorbidities (CC) and major complications and comorbidities (MCC) were assessed according to CMS.gov manual definitions. QALYs and cost per QALY were calculated using a 3% discount rate to account for residual decline to life expectancy (78.7 years). Costs per QALY were calculated for both 1 year and life expectancy, assuming no loss of benefit. A 10,000 trial Monte Carlo simulation with probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) assessed our model parameters and costs. RESULTS:360 propensity matched patients (120 open, 120 MIS, 120 robotic) met inclusion criteria. Descriptive statistics for the cohort were: age 58.8 ± 13.5, 50% women, BMI 29.4 ± 6.3, operative time 294.4 ± 119.0, LOS 4.56 ± 3.31 days, EBL 515.9 ± 670.0 cc, and 2.3 ± 2.2 average levels fused. Rates of post-op complications were significantly higher in robotic cases versus open and MIS (43% vs. 21% and 22% for open and MIS, p<0.05). However, revision rates were comparable between all groups (3% open, 3% MIS, 5% robotic, p>0.05). After factoring in complications, revisions, and purchasing and operating fees, the costs of robotic cases was significantly higher than both open and MIS surgery ($60,047.01 vs. $42,538.98 open and $41,471.21 MIS). In a subanalysis of 42 patients with baseline (BL) and 1Y EQ5D data, the cost per QALY at 1Y for open, MIS, and robot-assisted cases was $296,624.48, $115,911.69, and $592,734.30. If utility gained was sustained to life expectancy, the cost per QALY was $14,905.75, $5,824.71, $29,785.64 for open, MIS, and robot-assisted cases. Results of the PSA were consistent with MIS surgery having the most incremental cost effectiveness when compared to open and robotic surgery. CONCLUSIONS:Numerous advances have been made in the field of spine surgery, however, there has been limited discussion of the effect these advances have on economic outcomes. When matched for levels fused, robot-assisted surgery patients had significantly higher rates of complications and 30% higher costs of surgery compared to minimally invasive and open spine surgery patients. While 1 year economic outcomes weren't optimal for robotic surgery cases, the projected costs per quality adjusted life years at life expectancy were well below established acceptable thresholds. The above findings may be reflective of an educational learning curve and emerging surgical technologies undergoing progressive refinement.

BACKGROUND:The Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) and legacy outcome measures like the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) have not been compared for their sensitivity in reflecting the impact of perioperative complications and length of stay (LOS) in a surgical thoracolumbar population. The purpose of this study is to assess the strength of PROMIS and ODI scores as they correlate with LOS and complication outcomes of surgical thoracolumbar patients. METHODS:Retrospective cohort study. Included: patients ≥18 years undergoing thoracolumbar surgery with available preoperative and 3-month postoperative ODI and PROMIS scores. Pearson correlation assessed the linear relationships between LOS, complications, and scores for PROMIS (physical function, pain intensity, pain interference) and ODI. Linear regression predicted the relationship between complication incidence and scores for ODI and PROMIS. RESULTS:= .014) could predict complications; ODI could not. CONCLUSIONS:PROMIS domains of physical function and pain interference better reflected perioperative complications and LOS than the ODI. These results suggest PROMIS may offer more utility as an outcomes assessment instrument. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:3.

BACKGROUND:Adult sagittal spinal deformity (SSD) leads to the recruitment of compensatory mechanisms to maintain standing balance. After regional spinal compensation is exhausted, lower extremity compensation is recruited. Knee flexion, ankle flexion, and sacrofemoral angle increase to drive pelvic shift posterior and increase pelvic tilt. We aim to describe 2 summary angles termed ankle-pelvic angle (APA) and global lower extremity angle (GLA) that incorporate all aspects of lower extremity and pelvic compensation in a comprehensive measurement that can simplify radiographic analysis. METHODS:Full-body sagittal stereotactic radiographs were retrospectively collected and digitally analyzed. Spinal and lower extremity alignment were quantified with existing measures. Two angles-APA and GLA-were drawn as geometrically complementary angles to T1-pelvic angle (TPA) and global sagittal axis (GSA), respectively. Regression analysis was used to represent the predictive relationship between TPA and APA and between GSA and GLA. RESULTS:= .005). CONCLUSIONS:TPA and GSA are measures of global spinal alignment and APA and GLA, respectively, and are geometrically complementary angles that vary proportionately to SSD and balance the body. APA and GLA increase in SSD patients with lower extremity compensation and decrease with corrective surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:4. CLINICAL RELEVANCE/CONCLUSIONS:APA and GLA offer a concise and simple method of communicating pelvic and lower extremity compensation.

Adult spinal deformity is a broad spectrum of disorders that are becoming more prevalent with an ageing population. In those with moderate to severe deformity, surgical correction of spinal alignment is an increasingly common treatment and has demonstrated improvement in patients"™ quality of life. Whilst continued research in risk stratification, advances in surgical techniques, and preoperative optimization has taken place, rates of adverse outcomes following surgery for adult spinal deformity are still frequent. Pain is a common complaint after spinal deformity correction; however, whether this pain is deemed a "˜normal"™ amount, or a "˜pathological"™ pain has not been well characterized in the literature. This paper aims to provide a framework for evaluating pain after spinal deformity correction surgery in order to guide clinical decision making.

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE:Assess trends in sports-related cervical spine trauma using a pediatric inpatient database. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA/BACKGROUND:Injuries sustained from sports participation may include cervical spine trauma such as fractures and spinal cord injury(SCI). Large database studies analyzing sports-related cervical trauma in the pediatric population are currently lacking. METHODS:KID was queried for patients with external causes of injury secondary to sports-related activities from 2003-2012. Patients were further grouped for cervical spine injury type, including C1-4 & C5-7 fracture with/without spinal cord injury (SCI), dislocation, and SCI without radiographic abnormality (SCIWORA). Patients were grouped by age into Children(4-9),Pre-Adolescents(Pre,10-13),and Adolescents(14-17). Kruskall-Wallis tests with post-hoc Mann-Whitney-U's identified differences in cervical spine injury type across age groups and sport type. Logistic regression found predictors of TBI and specific cervical injuries. RESULTS:38,539pts identified(12.76yrs,24.5%F). Adolescents had the highest rate of sports injuries per year(p < 0.001). Adolescents had the highest rate of any type of cervical spine injury, including C1-4 and C5-7 fracture with and without SCI, dislocation, and SCIWORA(all p < 0.001). Adolescence increased odds for C1-4 fracture w/o SCI 3.18x, C1-4 fx w/ SCI by 7.57x, C5-7 fx w/o SCI 4.11x, C5-7 w/SCI 3.63x, cervical dislocation 1.7x, and cervical SCIWORA 2.75x, all p < 0.05. Football injuries rose from 5.83% in 2009 to 9.14% in 2012 (p < 0.001), and were associated with more SCIWORA(1.6%vs1.0%,p = 0.012), and football injuries increased odds of SCI by 1.56x. Concurrent TBI was highest in Adolescents at 58.4%(Pre:26.6%,Child:4.9%,p < 0.001), and SCIWORA was a significant predictor for concurrent TBI across all sports(OR: 2.35[1.77-3.11], p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS:Adolescent athletes had the highest rates of upper/lower cervical fracture, dislocation, and SCIWORA. Adolescence and SCIWORA were significant predictors of concurrent TBI across sports. The increased prevalence of cervical spine injury with age sheds light on the growing concern for youth sports played at a competitive level, and supports recently updated regulations aimed at decreasing youth athletic injuries. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:3.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT/BACKGROUND:Expandable cages (EXP) are being more frequently utilized in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions (TLIF). EXP were designed to reduce complications related to neurological retraction, enable better lordosis restoration, and improve ease of insertion, particularly in the advent of minimally invasive surgical (MIS) techniques, however they are exponentially more expensive than the nonexpandable (NE) alternative. PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To investigate the clinical results of expandable cages in single level TLIF. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING/METHODS:Retrospective review at a single institution. PATIENT SAMPLE/METHODS:Two hundred and fifty-two single level TLIFs from 2012 to 2018 were included. OUTCOME MEASURES/METHODS:Clinical characteristics, perioperative and neurologic complication rates, and radiographic measures. METHODS:Patients ≥18 years of age who underwent single level TLIF with minimum 1 year follow-up were included. OUTCOME MEASURES/METHODS:clinical characteristics, perioperative and neurologic complications. Radiographic analysis included pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis (PI-LL) mismatch, segmental lumbar lordosis (LL) mismatch, disc height restoration, and subsidence ≥2 mm. Statistical analysis included independent t tests and chi-square analysis. For nonparametric variables, Mann-Whitney U test and Spearman partial correlation were utilized. Multivariate regression was performed to assess relationships between surgical variables and recorded outcomes. For univariate analysis significance was set at p<.05. Due to the multiple comparisons being made, significance for regressions was set at p<.025 utilizing Bonferroni correction. RESULTS:Two hundred and fifty-two TLIFs between 2012 and 2018 were included, with 152 NE (54.6% female, mean age 59.28±14.19, mean body mass index (BMI) 28.65±5.38, mean Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) 2.20±1.89) and 100 EXP (48% female, mean age 58.81±11.70, mean BMI 28.68±6.06, mean CCI 1.99±1.66) with no significant differences in demographics. Patients instrumented with EXP cages had a shorter length of stay (3.11±2.06 days EXP vs. 4.01±2.64 days NE; Z=-4.189, p<.001) and a lower estimated blood loss (201.31±189.41 mL EXP vs. 377.82±364.06 mL NE; Z=-6.449, p<.001). There were significantly more MIS-TLIF cases and bone morphogenic protein (BMP) use in the EXP group (88% MIS, p<.001 and 60% BMP, p<.001) as illustrated in Table 1. There were no significant differences between the EXP and NE groups in rates of radiculitis and neuropraxia. In multivariate regression analysis, EXP were not associated with a difference in perioperative outcomes or complications. Radiographic analyses demonstrated that the EXP group had a lower PI-LL mismatch than the NE cage group at baseline (3.75±13.81° EXP vs. 12.75±15.81° NE; p=.001) and at 1 year follow-up (3.81±12.84° EXP vs. 8.23±12.73° NE; p=.046), but change in regional and segmental alignment was not significantly different between groups. Multivariate regression demonstrated that EXP use was a risk factor for intraoperative subsidence (2.729[1.185-6.281]; p=.018). CONCLUSIONS:Once technique was controlled for, TLIFs utilizing EXP do not have significantly improved neurologic or radiographic outcomes compared with NE. EXP increase risk of intraoperative subsidence. These results question the value of the EXP given the higher cost.

Advanced age and other comorbid factors correlate with age-increased morbidity associated with spine surgery. It is crucial that spine surgeons critically assess perioperative risks versus postoperative benefits of spine surgery in the growing elderly population. Close coordination between the surgeon, anesthesia team and the patient can minimize complications, improve function and contribute to decreased costs of these complex procedures.

BACKGROUND:The Miller et al adult spinal deformity frailty index (ASD-FI) correlates with complication risk; however, its development was not rooted in clinical outcomes, and the 40 factors needed for its calculation limit the index's clinical utility. The present study aimed to develop a simplified, weighted frailty index for ASD patients METHODS: This study is a retrospective review of a single-center database. Component ASD-FI parameters contributing to overall ASD-FI score were assessed via Pearson correlation. Top significant, clinically relevant factors were regressed against ASD-FI score to generate the modified ASD-FI (mASD-FI). Component mASD-FI factors were regressed against incidence of medical complications, and factor weights were calculated from regression of these coefficients. Total mASD-FI score ranged from 0 to 21, and was calculated by summing weights of expressed parameters. Linear regression and published ASD-FI cutoffs generated corresponding mASD-FI frailty cutoffs: not frail (NF, <7), frail (7-12), severely frail (SF, >12). Analysis of variance assessed the relationship between frailty category and validated baseline measures of pain and disability at baseline. RESULTS:= .001). CONCLUSIONS:This study modifies an existing ASD frailty index and proposes a weighted, shorter mASD-FI. The mASD-FI relies less on patient-reported variables, and it weights component factors by their contribution to adverse outcomes. Because increasing mASD-FI score is associated with inferior clinical measures of pain and disability, the mASD-FI may serve as a valuable tool for preoperative risk assessment.