Faculty Bibliography

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.

The aim of this study was to investigate the cost utility of treating non-frail versus frail or severely frail adult spinal deformity (ASD) patients. 79 surgical ASD patients >18 years with available frailty and ODI data at baseline and 2-years post-surgery (2Y) were included. Utility data was calculated using the ODI converted to the SF-6D. QALYs utilized a 3% discount rate to account for decline to life expectancy (LE). Costs were calculated using the PearlDiver database. ICER was compared between non-operative (non-op.) and operative (op.) NF and F/SF patients at 2Y and LE. When compared to non-operative ASD, the ICER was $447,943.96 vs. $313,211.01 for NF and F/SF at 2Y, and $68,311.35 vs. $47,764.61 for NF and F/SF at LE. Frail and severely frail patients had lower cost per QALY compared to not frail patients at 2Y and life expectancy, and had lower ICER values when compared to a non-operative cohort of ASD patients. While these results support operative correction of frail and severely frail patients, it is important to note that these patients are often at worse baseline disability, which is closely related to frailty scores, and have more opportunity to improve postoperatively. Furthermore, there may be a threshold of frailty that is not operable due to the risk of severe complications that is not captured by this analysis. While future research should investigate economic outcomes at extended follow up times, these findings support the cost effectiveness of ASD surgery at all frailty states.

BACKGROUND:Although epidural steroid injection (ESI) may provide pain relief for patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis in treatment regimens of up to 4 months, it remains unclear whether ESI affects crossover from nonoperative to operative management. METHODS:This retrospective cohort study analyzed 2 groups of surgical candidates with degenerative spondylolisthesis: those who received ESI within 3 months after enrollment (ESI group) and those who did not (no-ESI group). Annual outcomes following enrollment were assessed within operative and nonoperative groups (patients who initially chose or were assigned to surgery or nonoperative treatment) by using longitudinal mixed-effect models with a random subject intercept term accounting for correlations between repeated measurements. Treatment comparisons were performed at follow-up intervals. Area-under-the-curve analysis for all time points assessed the global significance of treatment. RESULTS:The study included 192 patients in the no-ESI group and 74 in the ESI group. The no-ESI group had greater baseline Short Form-36 (SF-36) Bodily Pain scores (median, 35 versus 32) and self-reported preference for surgery (38% versus 11%). There were no differences in surgical rates within 4 years after enrollment between the no-ESI and ESI groups (61% versus 62%). The surgical ESI and no-ESI groups also showed no differences in changes in patient-reported outcomes at any follow-up interval or in the 4-year average. Compared with the nonoperative ESI group, the nonoperative no-ESI group showed greater improvements in SF-36 scores for Bodily Pain (p = 0.004) and Physical Function (p = 0.005) at 4 years, Bodily Pain at 1 year (p = 0.002) and 3 years (p = 0.005), and Physical Function at 1 year (p = 0.030) and 2 years (p = 0.002). Of the patients who were initially treated nonsurgically, those who received ESI and those who did not receive ESI did not differ with regard to surgical crossover rates. The rates of crossover to nonoperative treatment by patients who initially chose or were assigned to surgery also did not differ between the ESI and no-ESI groups. CONCLUSIONS:There was no relationship between ESI and improved clinical outcomes over a 4-year study period for patients who chose or were assigned to receive surgery for degenerative spondylolisthesis. In the nonsurgical group, ESI was associated with inferior pain reduction through 3 years, although this was confounded by greater baseline pain. ESI showed little relationship with surgical crossover. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

STUDY DESIGN/UNASSIGNED:Retrospective cohort study of prospective patients undergoing minimally invasive lumbar fusion at a single academic institution. OBJECTIVE/UNASSIGNED:To assess differences in perioperative outcomes between primary and revision MIS (minimally invasive surgical) lumbar interbody fusion patients and compare with those undergoing corresponding open procedures. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:Patients ≥18 years old undergoing lumbar interbody fusion were grouped by surgical technique: MIS or open. Patients within each group were propensity score matched for comorbidities and levels fused. Patient demographics, surgical factors, and perioperative complication incidences were compared between primary and revision cases using means comparison tests, as appropriate. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:< .05). CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:Clinical outcomes of revision MIS lumbar interbody fusion were similar to those of primary surgery. Additionally, MIS techniques were associated with less EBL, shorter LOS, and fewer perioperative complications than corresponding open revisions.

There has been limited discussion as to whether spine surgery patients are benefiting from shorter in-patient hospital stays or if they are incurring higher rates of readmission and complications secondary to shortened length of stays. Included in this study were 237,446 spine patients >18yrs and excluding infection. Patients with Clavien Grade 5 complications in 2015 had the lowest mean time to readmission after initial surgery in all years at 12.44 ± 9.03 days. Pearson bivariate correlations between LOS ≤ 1 day and decreasing days to readmission was the strongest in 2016.). Logistic regression analysis found that LOS ≤ 1 day showed an overall increase in the odds of hospital readmission from 2012 to 2016 (2.29 [2.00-2.63], 2.33 [2.08-2.61], 2.35 [2.11-2.61], 2.27 [2.06-2.49], 2.33 [2.14-2.54], all p < 0.001).

Study Design/UNASSIGNED:Retrospective review of single institution. Objective/UNASSIGNED:To assess the relationship between Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores in thoracolumbar patients. Methods/UNASSIGNED:Included: Patients ≥18 years with a thoracolumbar spine condition (spinal stenosis, disc herniation, low back pain, disc degeneration, spondylolysis). Bivariate correlations assessed the linear relationships between ODI and PROMIS (Physical Function, Pain Intensity, and Pain Interference). Correlation cutoffs assessed patients with high and low correlation between ODI and PROMIS. Linear regression predicted the relationship of ODI to PROMIS. Results/UNASSIGNED:= 0.499) of the variance in Pain Intensity score. Conclusions/UNASSIGNED:There is a large amount of variability with PROMIS that cannot be accounted for with ODI. ODI questions regarding walking, social life, and lifting ability correlate strongly with PROMIS while sitting, standing, and sleeping do not. These results reinforce the utility of PROMIS as a valid assessment for low back disability, while indicating the need for further evaluation of the factors responsible for variation between PROMIS and ODI.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT/BACKGROUND:Obesity has risen to epidemic proportions within the United States. As the rates of obesity have increased, so has its prevalence among patients undergoing adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery. The effect of obesity on the cost efficiency of corrective procedures for ASD has not been effectively evaluated. PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To investigate differences in cost efficiency of ASD surgery for patients stratified by body mass index (BMI). STUDY DESIGN/SETTING/METHODS:Retrospective review of a single center ASD database. PATIENT SAMPLE/METHODS:505 ASD patients OUTCOME MEASURES: Complications, revisions, costs, EuroQol-5D (EQ5D), quality adjusted life years (QALYS), cost per QALY. METHODS:ASD patients (scoliosis≥20°, SVA≥5cm, PT≥25°, or TK ≥60°) ≥18, undergoing ≥4 level fusions were included. Patients were stratified into NIH-defined obesity groups based on their preoperative BMI: underweight 18.5< (U), normal 18.5-24.9 (N), overweight 25.0-29.9 (O), obese I 30.0-34.9 (OI), obese II 35.0-39.9 (OII), and obesity class III 40.0 + (OIII). Total surgery costs for each ASD obesity group were calculated. Costs were calculated using the PearlDiver database, which reflects both private insurance and Medicare reimbursement claims. Overall complications (CC) and major complications (MCC) were assessed according to CMS. DEFINITIONS/BACKGROUND:QALYs and cost per QALY for obesity groups were calculated using an annual 3% discount up to life expectancy (78.7 years). RESULTS:In all, 505 patients met inclusion criteria. Baseline demographics and surgical details were: age 60.8 ± 14.8, 67.6% female, BMI 28.8 ± 7.30, 81.0% posterior approach, 18% combined approach, 10.1 ± 4.2 levels fused, op time 441.2 ± 146.1 minutes, EBL 1903.8 ± 1594.7 cc, LOS 8.7 ± 10.7 days. There were 17 U, 154 N patients, 151 O patients, 100 OI, 51 OII, and 32 OIII patients. Revision rates by obesity group were: 0% U, 3% N patients, 3% O patients, 5% OI, 4% OII, and 6% for OIII patients. The total surgery costs by obesity group were: $48,757.86 U, $49,688.52 N, $47,219.93 O, $50,467.66 OI, $51,189.47 OII, and $53,855.79 OIII. In an analysis of patients with baseline and 1Y EQ5D follow up, the cost per QALY by obesity group was: $153,737.78 U, $229,222.37 N, $290,361.68 O, $493,588.47 OI, $327,876.21 OII, and $171,680.00 OIII. If that benefit was sustained to life expectancy, the cost per QALY was $8,588.70 U, $12,805.72 N, $16,221.32 O, $27,574.77 OI, $18,317.11 OII, and $9,591.06 for OIII. CONCLUSIONS:Among adult spinal deformity patients, those with BMIs in the obesity I, obesity II, or obesity class III range had more expensive total surgery costs. When assessing 1 year cost per quality adjusted life year, obese patients had costs 32% higher than non-obese patients ($224,440.61 vs. $331,048.23). Further research is warranted on the utility of optimizing modifiable preoperative health factors for patients undergoing corrective adult spinal deformity surgery.

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Single institution retrospective clinical review. OBJECTIVE:To investigate the relationship between levels fused and clinical outcomes in patients undergoing open and minimally invasive surgical (MIS) lumbar fusion. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA/BACKGROUND:Minimally invasive spinal fusion aims to reduce the morbidity associated with conventional open surgery. As multilevel arthrodesis procedures are increasingly performed using MIS techniques, it is necessary to weigh the risks and benefits of multilevel MIS lumbar fusion as a function of fusion length. METHODS:Patients undergoing <4 level lumbar interbody fusion were stratified by surgical technique (MIS or open), and grouped by fusion length: 1-level, 2-levels, 3+ levels. Demographics, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), surgical factors, and perioperative complication rates were compared between technique groups at different fusion lengths using means comparison tests. RESULTS:Included: 361 patients undergoing lumbar interbody fusion (88% transforaminal, 14% lateral; 41% MIS). Breakdown by fusion length: 63% 1-level, 22% 2-level, 15% 3+ level. Op-time did not differ between groups at 1-level (MIS: 233 min vs. Open: 227, P = 0.554), though MIS at 2-levels (332 min vs. 281) and 3+ levels (373 min vs. 323) were longer (P = 0.033 and P = 0.231, respectively). While complication rates were lower for MIS at 1-level (15% vs. 30%, P = 0.006) and 2-levels (13% vs. 27%, P = 0.147), at 3+ levels, complication rates were comparable (38% vs. 35%, P = 0.870). 3+ level MIS fusions had higher rates of ileus (13% vs. 0%, P = 0.008) and a trend of increased adverse pulmonary events (25% vs. 7%, P = 0.110). MIS was associated with less EBL at all lengths (all P < 0.01) and lower rates of anemia at 1-level (5% vs. 18%, P < 0.001) and 2-levels (7% vs. 16%, P = 0.193). At 3+ levels, however, anemia rates were similar between groups (13% vs. 15%, P = 0.877). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:MIS lumbar interbody fusions provided diminishing clinical returns for multilevel procedures. While MIS patients had lower rates of perioperative complications for 1- and 2-level fusions, 3+ level MIS fusions had comparable complication rates to open cases, and higher rates of adverse pulmonary and ileus events. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:3.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) is a comprehensive self-report measurement tool with patient functions, symptoms, behaviors, and mental health outcomes. Little work has been done correlating PROMIS physical health domain metrics with established adult spinal deformity (ASD) classifications such as SRS-Schwab. PURPOSE: To correlate sagittal alignment components via the SRS-Schwab classification system with established PROMIS domains in a cohort of ASD patients. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective review of a single-center stereoradiographic database. PATIENT SAMPLE: A total of 41 ASD patients with complete baseline radiographic and PROMIS data. OUTCOME MEASURES: PROMIS physical health domain metrics (Pain Intensity [PI], Physical Function [PF], Pain Interference [Interference]), SRS-Schwab modifiers (SVA, PI-LL, PT) METHODS: Surgical ASD patients (SVA>=5cm, PT>=25degree or TK >=60degree) >=18 years old with available baseline (BL) radiographic and PROMIS data were isolated in the single-center comprehensive Spine Quality Database (Quality). Patients were classified according to SRS-Schwab deformity modifiers(0,+,++) for SVA, PI-LL and PT. Descriptives and univariate analyses compared population-weighted PROMIS scores for PI, PF and Interference across ASD deformity modifiers. Conditional Tree Analysis (CTA) with logistic regression sampling established cut-off points for PROMIS scores predicting severe malalignment (++) at BL compared to mild or moderate (0,+).
RESULT(S): A total of 41 patients (58.95 yrs,75.6%F,29.1kg/m2) met inclusion criteria. BL SRS modifiers were as follows: SVA 51.2%, 2.4%, 46.3% (0,+,++); PI-LL 27.3%, 12.1%, 60.6%(0,+,++); PT 18.2%, 36.4%, 45.5% (0,+,++). Mean cohort PI score was 94.2+/-6.0, mean PF score 8.95+/-10.1, mean Inter score 57.84+/-5.46. PF and Interference differed significantly across low and high SVA groups, with low SVA having significantly higher PF (13.50 vs 3.68,p<0.001) and lower Inter (59.62 vs 56.30, p=0.05). PI did not differ across SVA groups (p>0.05). Low PI-LL pts had significantly higher PF than pts with ++PI-LL (19.3 vs 4.15,p=0.001) and trended lower PI and Inter without significance. No significant differences in PI, PF or Inter were found across PT groups (all p>0.05). CTA found a PI score>98 or PF score <6 were independent predictors of Severe (++) SVA as opposed to Mild/Moderate SVA. For example, a PF score<6 increased odds of ++SVA by at least 2.7x compared to 0/+SVA. Similarly, significant thresholds for PI (>98) and PF (<8) scores were found for ++PI-LL, but not ++PT (p>0.05). Pain Interference did not predict SRS metrics to a significant degree (all p>0.05).
CONCLUSION(S): Inferior PROMIS scores of pain intensity and physical function predicted increasingly severe SRS sagittal modifiers at baseline, specifically severe sagittal vertical axis and lumbopelvic mismatch. FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS: This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs.
Copyright

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: 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: Compare the economic outcomes of lumbar spine fusion between open, MIS and robotic assisted surgery patients. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective review of a single center spine surgery database. PATIENT SAMPLE: A total of 360 propensity matched patients. OUTCOME MEASURES: Costs, EuroQol-5D (EQ5D), Cost per quality adjusted life years (QALY).
METHOD(S): 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 robot 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.
RESULT(S): A total of 360 propensity matched patients (120 open, 120 MIS, 120 robot) met inclusion. Descriptive statistics for the cohort were: age 58.8+/-13.5, 50% women, BMI 29.4+/-6.3, op 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 postop 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 sub analysis of 42 patients with 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.
CONCLUSION(S): 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. FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS: This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs.
Copyright