Faculty Bibliography

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study OBJECTIVE:: To propose radiographic characteristics of patients with cervical disability and to investigate the relevant parameters when assessing cervical alignment. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Although cervical kyphosis is traditionally recognized as presentation of cervical deformity, an increasing number of studies demonstrated that cervical kyphosis may not equal cervical deformity. Therefore, several other differentiating criteria for cervical deformity should be investigated and supported with quality of life scores. METHODS: A database of full-body radiographs was retrospectively reviewed. Patients without previous cervical surgery, with a well aligned thoracolumbar profile (defined as T1 pelvis angle (TPA) <15 degrees ) and with an available Neck Disability Index (NDI) score were reviewed in this study. Subjects were stratified into an asymptomatic (64 subjects with NDI15, VAS neck>3, or VAS arm>3). Independent t-tests were performed to investigate differences between two groups. Logistic regressions and principle component analyses were then performed. RESULTS: NDI averaged 5.43 in asymptomatic group, significantly smaller than symptomatic group (5.43 vs. 41.25). T-test revealed that C2-C7 SVA, McGregor slope (McGS) and the slope of line of sight (SLS were significantly different while C2C7 angle (Cervical curvature, CC) did not show statistical difference (P = 0.09). Logistic regressions were performed using the significantly different parameters as well as CC. Results identified C2-C7 SVA and SLS as independent risk factors for low HRQoL. The principle component analysis, lead to a new factor (0.55 x C2C7 SVA + 0.34 x C0C2 + 0.77 x CC) with strong correlations with NDI, VAS and EQ5D measurements. CONCLUSION: The traditional concept of cervical kyphosis should not be regarded as a standalone criterion of cervical deformity. The most clinically relevant components of cervical analysis are the C2-C7 SVA, C0C2 angle and C2C7 angle. In addition, the three components should be assessed in together in harmony and not individually. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.

STUDY DESIGN:Retrospective review of a prospective database. OBJECTIVES:To investigate adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery outcome trends on a nationwide scale using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) from 2003 to 2010. METHODS:ASD patients ≥25 years from 2003 to 2010 in the NIS undergoing anterior, posterior, or combined surgical approaches were included. Fractures, 9+ levels fused, or any cancer were excluded. Patient demographics, hospital data, and procedure-related complications were evaluated. Yearly trends were analyzed using univariate analysis and linear regression modeling. RESULTS:Of 10,966 discharges, 1,952 were anterior, 6,524 were posterior, and 1,106 were combined. The total surgical ASD volume increased by 112.5% (p = .029), and both the average patient age (p < .001) and number of patients >65 years old significantly increased from 2003 to 2010 (p = .009). Anterior approach case volume decreased by 13.7% (p = .019), whereas that of combined increased by 22.7% (p = .047). Posterior case volume increased by 38.9% from 2003 to 2010, though insignificantly (p = .084). Total hospital charges for all approaches increased over the interval (p < .001). Total length of stay for all approaches decreased over the time interval (p < .005). Although the overall morbidity for all approaches increased by 22.7% (p < .001), mortality did not change (p = .817). The most common morbidities in 2003 were hemorrhagic anemia, accidental cut, puncture, perforation, or laceration during a procedure, and device-related complications, which persisted in 2010 with the exception of increased acute respiratory distress syndrome and pulmonary-related complications. CONCLUSIONS:For ASD surgery from 2003 to 2010, the volume of anterior approaches decreased, whereas posterior procedures did not change, and combined approaches increased. Total hospital charges increased for all considered procedures, length of hospital stay decreased, whereas operative patients were increasingly elderly, and more procedures were observed for patients >65 years old. For all approaches, morbidity increased whereas mortality did not change. Future study is required to develop methods to reduce morbidity and costs, thereby optimizing patient outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Orthopaedic care is shifting to alternative payment models. We examined whether New York University Langone Medical Center achieved savings under the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Bundled Payments for Care Improvement initiative. METHODS: This study was a difference-in-differences study of Medicare fee-for-service patients hospitalized from April 2011 to June 2012 and October 2013 to December 2014 for lower extremity joint arthroplasty, cardiac valve procedures, or spine surgery (intervention groups), or for congestive heart failure, major bowel procedures, medical peripheral vascular disorders, medical noninfectious orthopaedic care, or stroke (control group). We examined total episode costs and costs by service category. RESULTS: We included 2,940 intervention episodes and 1,474 control episodes. Relative to the trend in the control group, lower extremity joint arthroplasty episodes achieved the greatest savings: adjusted average episode cost during the intervention period decreased by $3,017 (95% confidence interval [CI], -$6,066 to $31). For cardiac procedures, the adjusted average episode cost decreased by $2,999 (95% CI, -$8,103 to $2,105), and for spinal fusion, it increased by $8,291 (95% CI, $2,879 to $13,703). Savings were driven predominantly by shifting postdischarge care from inpatient rehabilitation facilities to home. Spinal fusion index admission costs increased because of changes in surgical technique. DISCUSSION: Under bundled payment, New York University Langone Medical Center decreased total episode costs in patients undergoing lower extremity joint arthroplasty. For patients undergoing cardiac valve procedures, evidence of savings was not as strong, and for patients undergoing spinal fusion, total episode costs increased. For all three conditions, the proportion of patients referred to inpatient rehabilitation facilities upon discharge decreased. These changes were not associated with an increase in index hospital length of stay or readmission rate. CONCLUSION: Opportunities for savings under bundled payment may be greater for lower extremity joint arthroplasty than for other conditions.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Adult spinal deformity (ASD) represents a constellation of complex mal-alignments affecting the spinal column. Corrective surgical procedures aimed at improving ASD can be equally challenging, and commonly require multiple index procedures and potential revisions prior to definitive management. There is a paucity of data comparing the outcomes of same-day (simultaneous) and two-day (staged) procedures for long spinal-fusions for ASD. Utilizing a large patient cohort with surgeon and patient-reported outcomes will be particularly useful in determining the utility and effect of staging long spine fusions for ASD. PURPOSE: Compare intra-operative, peri-operative, and two-year outcomes of staged and simultaneous procedures correcting ASD. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective analysis of a prospective multi-center database. PATIENT SAMPLE: 142 patients (71 Staged, 71 Simultaneous). OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary: intra- and peri-op (6 wk) complication rates. Secondary: 2 year thoracolumbar and spino-pelvic radiographic parameters, 2 year Health Related Quality of Life changes (Oswestry Disability Index and SF-36), and 2 year complication rates METHODS: Inclusion criteria included ASD patients >/=18yrs with 6-wk and 2 year follow-up. Propensity score matching identified similar patients undergoing staged (STA) or simultaneous (SIM) long spine fusions based on Surgical Invasiveness, Pelvic Tilt, and SVA. Complications, HRQLs (SRS22r, SF-36, ODI), and patient characteristics were compared across and within treatment groups at follow-up with ANOVA and paired t-tests at 3 surgical stages: intra-op, peri-op (6wk), and post-op (>6wk). RESULTS: 142 patients were included (71 STA, 71 SIM). Matching staged and simultaneous groups based on degree of deformity and surgical invasiveness created two groups similar in overall correction of the surgery. STA patients underwent more ALIF and LLIF interbody procedures while SIM patients had longer fusions. Charlson Comorbidity Index and revision status were similar between groups (p>0.05). There were significantly more complications causing reoperation in STA procedures (STA: 47% SIM: 8%, p=0.021). STA had a greater number of peri-op complications requiring a return to the OR (STA: 9.9% SIM: 1.4% p=0.029). There was no difference in intra-op complications, mortality, or peri-op infection or wound complications (p>0.05). At 2 year follow-up, incidence of revision surgery was higher in STA (STA: 21.1% SIM: 8.5%, p=0.033). CONCLUSION: Staged spinal fusions which add ALIFs and LLIFs to the procedure, compared to similar-correction simultaneous procedures, result in similar intra-operative complication incidence, but significantly higher rates of peri- and post-op complications leading to revision. Functional outcomes, radiographic parameters, and mortality were similar. This will aid surgeons in their determination of optimal treatment for such complex procedures.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of prospectively collected data. OBJECTIVE: Assess outcomes of adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery performed by 1 vs. 2 attending surgeons. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: ASD centers have developed 2-attending teams in order to improve efficiency; their effects on complications and outcomes have not been reported. METHODS: ASD patients with >/=5 levels fused and > 2-year follow-up were included. Estimated blood loss (EBL), length of stay (LOS), operating room (OR) time, complications, quality of life (HRQOL) and X-rays were analyzed. Outcomes were compared between 1-surgeon (1S) and 2-surgeon (2S) centers. A deformity-matched cohort was analyzed. RESULTS: 188 patients in 1S and 77 in 2S group were included. 2S group patients were older and had worse deformity based on the SRS-Schwab classification (p < 0.05). There were no significant differences in levels fused (p = 0.57), LOS (8.7 vs. 8.9 days), OR time (445.9 vs. 453.2 min) or EBL (2008 vs. 1898 cc; p > 0.05). 2S patients had more 3-column osteotomies (3CO; p < 0.001) and used less bone morphogenetic protein 2 (BMP-2; 79.9 vs. 15.6%; p < 0.001). The 2S group had fewer intra-operative complications (1.3 vs. 11.1%; p = 0.006). Post-operative (6-weeks to 2-year) complications were more frequent in the 2S group (4.8 vs. 15.6%; p < 0.002). After matching for deformity, there were no differences in LOS (9.1 vs. 10.1 days), OR time (467.8 vs. 508.4 min) or EBL (3045 vs. 2247 cc; p = 0.217). 2S group used less BMP-2 (20.6 vs. 84.8%; p < 0.001), had fewer intra-operative complications (p = 0.015) but post-operative complications due to instrumentation failure/pseudarthrosis were more frequent (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: No significant differences were found in LOS, OR time or EBL between the 1S and 2S groups, even when matching for severity of deformity. 2S group had less BMP-2 use, fewer intra-operative complications but more post-operative complications. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.

STUDY DESIGN: An electronic survey administered to Scoliosis Research Society (SRS) membership. OBJECTIVE: To characterize surgeon practices and views regarding the use of two attending surgeons for adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The use of two experienced attending surgeons can decrease the operative time, estimated blood loss, and perioperative complication rates. However, the current practice patterns for the use of two attending surgeons remains unknown. METHODS: An electronic, 27-question survey regarding single/dual attending surgeons was administered to the SRS membership. Determinants included: surgeon/practice demographics, assistant type/level of training, and questions regarding use of two attending surgeons. Overall reporting and comparisons between groups were made: US versus international, academic versus private practice, and experience <15 years versus >15 years. RESULTS: A total of 199 surgeons responded from 27 different countries. Overall and between the groups, the respondents significantly reported believing that two attending spine surgeons improves safety, decreases complications, and improves outcomes (P < 0.01). Approximately, 67.3% reported using a second attending /=51% of the time (similar between groups); 51.1% that have a second attending feel it's limited by reimbursement and access concerns and 71.9% have difficulty getting the second attending reimbursed. 72.3% use a second attending for ALL of the following reasons (no difference between groups): "it's safer/reduces complications," "it decreases operative time," "it decreases blood loss," "it results in improved outcomes," "it's less work and stress for me." If reimbursement was equal/assured for a second attending, 67.5% would use one "more often" or "always." CONCLUSION: The respondents feel that having a second attending surgeon improves patient care, however most do not use one often. Reasons include reimbursement/access concerns and the majority would use one if reimbursement was equal and assured. Based on the current literature and these results, there is a need for working with third party payers to improve dual surgeon reimbursement rates in complex cases. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 5.