Search

Background: There is increasing interest in forecasting postoperative complications using bone density metrics. Vertebral Hounsfield unit measurements obtained from CT scans performed for surgical planning or other purposes, known as opportunistic CTs, have shown promise for their ease of measurement and the ability to target density measurement to a particular region of interest. Concomitant with the rising interest in prognostic bone density measurement use has been the increasing adoption of intraoperative advanced imaging techniques. Despite the interest in both outcome prognostication and intraoperative advanced imaging, there is little information regarding the use of CT-based intraoperative imaging as a means to measure bone density., Questions/purposes: (1) Can vertebral Hounsfield units be reliably measured by physician reviewers from CT scans obtained intraoperatively? (2) Do Hounsfield units measured from intraoperative studies correlate with values measured from preoperative CT scans?, Methods: To be eligible for this retrospective study, patients had to have been treated with the use of an intraoperative CT scan for instrumented spinal fusion for either degenerative conditions or traumatic injuries between January 2015 and December 2022. Importantly, patients without a preoperative CT scan of the fused levels within 180 days before surgery or who were indicated for surgery because of infection, metastatic disease, or who were having revision surgery after prior instrumentation were excluded from the query. Of the 285 patients meeting these inclusion criteria, 53% (151) were initially excluded for the following reasons: 36% (102) had intraoperative CT scans obtained after placement of instrumentation, 16% (47) had undergone intraoperative CT scans but the studies were not accessible for Hounsfield unit measurement, and 0.7% (2) had prior kyphoplasty wherein the cement prevented Hounsfield unit measurement. Finally, an additional 19% (53) of patients were excluded because the preoperative CT and intraoperative CT were obtained at different peak voltages, which can influence Hounsfield unit measurement. This yielded a final population of 81 patients from whom 276 preoperative and 276 intraoperative vertebral Hounsfield unit measurements were taken. Hounsfield unit data were abstracted from the same vertebra(e) from both preoperative and intraoperative studies by two physician reviewers (one PGY3 and one PGY5 orthopaedic surgery resident, both pursuing spine surgery fellowships). For a small, representative subset of patients, measurements were taken by both reviewers. The feasibility and reliability of Hounsfield unit measurement were then assessed with interrater reliability of values measured from the same vertebra by the two different reviewers. To compare Hounsfield unit values from intraoperative CT scans with preoperative CT studies, an intraclass correlation using a two-way random effects, absolute agreement testing technique was employed. Because the data were formatted as multiple measurements from the same vertebra at different times, a repeated measures correlation was used to assess the relationship between preoperative and intraoperative Hounsfield unit values. Finally, a linear mixed model with patients handled as a random effect was used to control for different patient and clinical factors (age, BMI, use of bone density modifying agents, American Society of Anesthesiologists [ASA] classification, smoking status, and total Charlson comorbidity index [CCI] score)., Results: We found that Hounsfield units can be reliably measured from intraoperative CT scans by human raters with good concordance. Hounsfield unit measurements of 31 vertebrae from a representative sample of 10 patients, measured by both reviewers, demonstrated a correlation value of 0.82 (95% CI 0.66 to 0.91), indicating good correlation. With regard to the relationship between preoperative and intraoperative measurements of the same vertebra, repeated measures correlation testing demonstrated no correlation between preoperative and intraoperative measurements (r = 0.01 [95% CI -0.13 to 0.15]; p = 0.84). When controlling for patient and clinical factors, we continued to observe no relationship between preoperative and intraoperative Hounsfield unit measurements., Conclusion: As intraoperative CT and measurement of vertebral Hounsfield units both become increasingly popular, it would be a natural extension for spine surgeons to try to extract Hounsfield unit data from intraoperative CTs. However, we found that although it is feasible to measure Hounsfield data from intraoperative CT scans, the obtained values do not have any predictable relationship with values obtained from preoperative studies, and thus, these values should not be used interchangeably. With this knowledge, future studies should explore the prognostic value of intraoperative Hounsfield unit measurements as a distinct entity from preoperative measurements., Level of Evidence: Level III, diagnostic study., Competing Interests: Each author certifies that there are no funding or commercial associations (consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements, etc.) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article related to the author or any immediate family members. All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for authors and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® editors and board members are on file with the publication and can be viewed on request., (Copyright © 2024 by the Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons.)

Objective: Laminectomy and fusion (LF) and laminoplasty (LP) are 2 sucessful posterior decompression techniques for cervical myelo-radiculopathy. There is also a growing body of evidence describing the importance of cervical sagittal alignment (CSA) and its importance in outcomes. We investigated the difference between pre- and postoperative CSA parameters in and between LF or LP. Furthermore, we studied predictive variables associated with change in cervical mismatch (CM)., Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study of adults with cervical myeloradiculopathy in a single healthcare system. The primary outcomes are intra- and inter-cohort comparison of LF versus LP radiographic parameters at pre- and postoperative time points. A secondary multivariable analysis of predictive factors was performed evaluating factors predicting postoperative CM., Results: Eighty nine patients were included; 38 (43%) had LF and 51 (57%) underwent LP. Both groups decreased in lordosis (LF 11.4° vs. 4.9°, P = 0.01; LP 15.2° vs. 9.1°, P < 0.001), increased in cSVA (LF 3.4 vs. 4.2 cm, P = 0.01; LP 3.2 vs. 4.2 cm, P < 0.001), and increased in CM (LF 22.0° vs. 28.5°, P = 0.02; LP 16.8° vs. 22.3°, P = 0.002). There were no significant differences in the postoperative CSA between groups. No significant predictors of change in pre- and postoperative CM were found., Conslusions: There were no significant pre-or postoperative differences following the 2 procedures, suggesting radiographic equipoise in well indicated patients. Across all groups, lordosis decreased, cSVA increased, and cervical mismatch increased. There were no predictive factors that led to change in cervical mismatch., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Competing Interests: Disclosure: The Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest forms are provided with the online version of the article ( http://links.lww.com/JBJS/H758 ).

Standardized handoff tools improve communication and patient care; however, their widespread use in surgical fields is lacking. OrthoPass, an orthopaedic adaptation of I-PASS, was developed in 2019 to address handoff concerns and demonstrated sustained improvements across multiple handoff domains over an 18-month period. We sought to characterize the longitudinal effect and sustainability of OrthoPass within a single large residency program 3.5 years after its implementation. This mixed methods study involved electronic handoff review for quality domains in addition to survey distribution and evaluation. We conducted comparative analyses of handoff adherence and survey questions as well as a thematic analysis of provider-free responses. We evaluated 146 electronic handoffs orthopaedic residents, fellows, and advanced practice providers 3.5 years after OrthoPass implementation. Compared with 18-month levels, adherence was sustained across five of nine handoff domains and was markedly improved in two domains. Furthermore, provider valuations of OrthoPass improved regarding promoting communication and patient safety (83% versus 70%) and avoiding patient errors and near misses (72% versus 60%). These improvements were further substantiated by positive trends in Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Surveys on Patient Safety Culture hospital survey data. Thematic analysis of free responses shared by 37 providers (42%) generated favorable, unfavorable, and balanced themes further contextualized by subthemes. At 3.5 years after its introduction, OrthoPass continues to improve patient handoff quality and to support provider notions of patient safety. Although providers acknowledged the benefits of this electronic handoff tool, they also shared unique insights into several drawbacks. This feedback will inform ongoing efforts to improve OrthoPass., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.)

Study Design: This was a retrospective cohort study., Objective: To characterize the variability in cost for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) constructs and to identify key predictors of procedural cost., Summary of Background Data: ACDF is commonly performed for surgical treatment of cervical radiculopathy and myelopathy. Numerous biomechanical constructs and graft/biological options are available, with most demonstrating relatively equivalent clinical results. Despite the substantial focus on value in spine care, the differences and contributions to procedural cost in ACDF have not been well defined., Materials and Methods: We evaluated the records of patients who underwent a single level ACDF from 2016 to 2020 at 4 hospitals in a major metropolitan area. We abstracted demographics, insurance status, operative time, diagnosis, surgeon, institution, and components of procedural costs. Costs based on construct were compared using multivariable adjusted analyses using negative binomial regression. The primary outcome measures were cost differences between ACDF techniques., Results: Two hundred sixty-four patients were included, with procedures by 13 surgeons across 4 institutions. The total procedural cost for ACDF had a mean of US$2317 with wide variation (range, US$967-US$7370). Multivariable analysis revealed body mass index and use of polyether ether ketone to be correlated with increased cost while carbon fiber and autograft correlated with decreased cost. When comparing standalone device constructs to cases with anterior instrumentation (plate/screws), the total cost was significantly higher in the plate/screw group (US$2686±US$921 vs. US$1466±US$878, P <0.001)., Conclusions: We encountered wide variation in procedural costs associated with ACDF, including as much as an 8-fold difference in the cost of constructs. The most important drivers included instrumentation type and implant materials. Here, we identify potential targets of opportunity for health care organizations that are looking to reduce variance in procedural expenditures to improve health care savings associated with the performance of ACDF., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Study Design: Retrospective cross-sectional study., Objective: (1) To determine the incremental increase in intraoperative ionizing radiation conferred by computed tomography (CT) as compared with conventional radiography; and (2) to model different lifetime cancer risks contextualized by the intersection between age, sex, and intraoperative imaging modality., Summary of Background Data: Emerging technologies in spine surgery, like navigation, automation, and augmented reality, commonly utilize intraoperative CT. Although much has been written about the benefits of such imaging modalities, the inherent risk profile of increasing intraoperative CT has not been well evaluated., Materials and Methods: Effective doses of intraoperative ionizing radiation were extracted from 610 adult patients who underwent single-level instrumented fusion for lumbar degenerative or isthmic spondylolisthesis from January 2015 through January 2022. Patients were divided into those who received intraoperative CT (n=138) and those who underwent conventional intraoperative radiography (n=472). Generalized linear modeling was utilized with intraoperative CT use as a primary predictor and patient demographics, disease characteristics, and preference-sensitive intraoperative considerations ( e.g. surgical approach and surgical invasiveness) as covariates. The adjusted risk difference in radiation dose calculated from our regression analysis was used to prognosticate the associated cancer risk across age and sex strata., Results: (1) After adjusting for covariates, intraoperative CT was associated with 7.6 mSv (interquartile range: 6.8-8.4 mSv; P <0.001) more radiation than conventional radiography. (2) For the median patient in our population (a 62-year-old female), intraoperative CT use increased lifetime cancer risk by 2.3 incidents (interquartile range: 2.1-2.6) per 10,000. Similar projections for other age and sex strata were also appreciated., Conclusions: Intraoperative CT use significantly increases cancer risk compared with conventional intraoperative radiography for patients undergoing lumbar spinal fusions. As emerging technologies in spine surgery continue to proliferate and leverage intraoperative CT for cross-sectional imaging data, strategies must be developed by surgeons, institutions, and medical technology companies to mitigate long-term cancer risks., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background Context: Radiographs, fluoroscopy, and computed tomography (CT) are increasingly utilized in the diagnosis and management of various spine pathologies. Such modalities utilize ionizing radiation, a known cause of carcinogenesis. While the radiation doses such studies confer has been investigated previously, it is less clear how such doses translate to projected cancer risks, which may be a more interpretable metric., Purpose: (1) Calculate the lifetime cancer risk and the relative contributions of preference-sensitive selection of imaging modalities associated with the surgical management of a common spine pathology, isthmic spondylolisthesis (IS); (2) Investigate whether the use of intraoperative CT, which is being more pervasively adopted, increases the risk of cancer., Study Design/setting: Retrospective cross-sectional study carried out within a large integrated health care network., Patient Sample: Adult patients who underwent surgical treatment of IS via lumbar fusion from January 2016 through December 2021., Outcome Measures: (1) Effective radiation dose and lifetime cancer risk associated with each exposure to ionizing radiation; (2) Difference in effective radiation dose (and lifetime cancer risk) among patients who received intraoperative CT compared to other intraoperative imaging techniques., Methods: Baseline demographics and differences in surgical techniques were characterized. Radiation exposure data were collected from the 2-year period centered on the operative date. Projected risk of cancer from this radiation was calculated utilizing each patient's effective radiation dose in combination with age and sex. Generalized linear modeling was used to adjust for covariates when determining the comparative risk of intraoperative CT as compared to alternative imaging modalities., Results: We included 151 patients in this cohort. The range in calculated cancer risk exclusively from IS management was 1.3-13 cases of cancer per 1,000 patients. During the intraoperative period, CT imaging was found to significantly increase radiation exposure as compared to alternate imaging modalities (adjusted risk difference (ARD) 12.33mSv; IQR 10.04, 14.63mSv; p<.001). For a standardized 40 to 49-year-old female, this projects to an additional 0.72 cases of cancer per 1,000. For the entire 2-year perioperative care episode, intraoperative CT as compared to other intraoperative imaging techniques was not found to increase total ionizing radiation exposure (ARD 9.49mSv; IQR -0.83, 19.81mSv; p=.072). The effect of intraoperative imaging choice was mitigated in part due to preoperative (ARD 13.1mSv, p<.001) and postoperative CTs (ARD 22.7mSv, p<.001)., Conclusions: Preference-sensitive imaging decisions in the treatment of IS impart substantial cancer risk. Important drivers of radiation exposure exist in each phase of care, including intraoperative CT and/or CT scans during the perioperative period. Knowledge of these data warrant re-evaluation of current imaging protocols and suggest a need for the development of radiation-sensitive approaches to perioperative imaging., Competing Interests: Declarations of Competing Interests One or more of the authors declare financial or professional relationships on ICMJE-TSJ disclosure forms., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background Context: The use of intraoperative CT has continued to grow in recent years, as various techniques leverage the promise of improved instrumentation accuracy and the hope for decreased complications. Nonetheless, the literature regarding the short- and long-term complications associated with such techniques remains scant and/or confounded by indication and selection bias., Purpose: To use causal inference techniques to determine whether intraoperative CT use is associated with an improved complication profile as compared to conventional radiography for single-level lumbar fusions, an increasingly commonplace application for this technology., Study Design/setting: Inverse probability weighted retrospective cohort study carried out within a large integrated health care network., Patient Sample: Adult patients who underwent surgical treatment of spondylolisthesis via lumbar fusion from January 2016 to December 2021., Outcome Measures: Our primary outcome was the incidence rate of revision surgery. Our secondary outcome was the incidence of composite 90-day complications (deep and superficial surgical site infection, venous thromboembolic events, and unplanned readmissions)., Methods: Demographics, intraoperative information, and postoperative complications were abstracted from electronic health records. A propensity score was developed utilizing a parsimonious model to account for covariate interaction with our primary predictor, intraoperative imaging technique. This propensity score was utilized in the creation of inverse probability weights to adjust for indication and selection bias. The rate of revisions within 3 years as well as the rate of revisions at any time-point were compared between cohorts using Cox regression analysis. The incidence of composite 90-day complications were compared using negative binomial regression., Results: Our patient population consisted of 583 patients, with 132 who underwent intraoperative CT and 451 who underwent conventional radiographic techniques. There were no significant differences between cohorts following inverse probability weighting. No significant differences were detected in 3-year revision rates (HR, 0.74 [95% CI 0.29, 1.92]; p=.5), overall revision rates (HR, 0.54 [95% CI 0.20, 1.46]; p=.2), or 90-day complications (RC -0.24 [95% CI -1.35, 0.87]; p=.7)., Conclusions: Intraoperative CT use was not associated with an improved complication profile in either the short- or long-term for patients undergoing single-level instrumented fusion. This observed clinical equipoise should be weighed against resource and radiation-related costs when considering intraoperative CT for low complexity fusions., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Laminoplasty (LP) and laminectomy and fusion (LF) are utilized to achieve decompression in patients with symptomatic degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM). Comparative analyses aimed at determining outcomes and clarifying indications between these procedures represent an area of active research. Accordingly, we sought to compare inpatient opioid use between LP and LF patients and to determine if opioid use correlated with length of stay., Methods: Sociodemographic information, surgical and hospitalization data, and medication administration records were abstracted for patients >18 years of age who underwent LP or LF for DCM in the Mass General Brigham (MGB) health system between 2017 and 2019. Specifically, morphine milligram equivalents (MME) of oral and parenteral pain medication given after arrival in the recovery area until discharge from the hospital were collected. Categorical variables were analyzed using chi-squared analysis or Fisher exact test when appropriate. Continuous variables were compared using Independent samples t tests and Mann-Whitney U tests., Results: One hundred eight patients underwent LF, while 138 patients underwent LP. Total inpatient opioid use was significantly higher in the LF group (312 vs. 260 MME, p=.03); this difference was primarily driven by higher postoperative day 0 pain medication requirements. Furthermore, more LF patients required high dose (>80 MME/day) regimens. While length of stay was significantly different between groups, with LF patients staying approximately 1 additional day, postoperative day 0 MME was not a significant predictor of this difference. When operative levels including C2, T1, and T2 were excluded, the differences in total opioid use and average length of stay lost significance., Conclusions: Inpatient opioid use and length of stay were significantly greater in LF patients compared to LP patients; however, when constructs including C2, T1, T2 were excluded from analysis, these differences lost significance. Such findings highlight the impact of operative extent between these procedures. Future studies incorporating patient reported outcomes and evaluating long-term pain needs will provide a more complete understanding of postoperative outcomes between these 2 procedures., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (© 2023 The Author(s).)

Study Design: Retrospective radiographic study., Objective: To evaluate cervical sagittal alignment measurement reliability and correlation between upright radiographs and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)., Summary of Background Data: Cervical sagittal alignment (CSA) helps determine the surgical technique employed to treat cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Traditionally, upright lateral radiographs are used to measure CSA, but obtaining adequate imaging can be challenging. Utilizing MRI to evaluate sagittal parameters has been explored; however, the impact of positional change on these parameters has not been determined., Methods: One hundred seventeen adult patients were identified who underwent laminoplasty or laminectomy and fusion for cervical spondylotic myelopathy from 2017 to 2019. Two clinicians independently measured the C2-C7 sagittal angle, C2-C7 sagittal vertical axis (SVA), and the T1 tilt. Interobserver and intraobserver reliability were assessed by intraclass correlation coefficient., Results: Intraobserver and interobserver reliabilities were highly correlated, with correlations greater than 0.85 across all permutations; intraclass correlation coefficients were highest with MRI measurements. The C2-C7 sagittal angle was highly correlated between x-ray and MRI at 0.76 with no significant difference ( P =0.46). There was a weaker correlation with regard to C2-C7 SVA (0.48) and T1 tilt (0.62) with significant differences observed in the mean values between the 2 modalities ( P <0.01)., Conclusions: The C2-C7 sagittal angle is highly correlated and not significantly different between upright x-ray and supine MRIs. However, cervical SVA and T1 tilt change with patient position. Since MRI does not accurately reflect the CSA in the upright position, upright lateral radiographs should be obtained to assess global sagittal alignment when planning a posterior-based cervical procedure., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Spinal epidural abscess (SEA) is a complex medical condition with high morbidity and healthcare costs. Clinical presentation and laboratory data may have prognostic value in forecasting morbidity and mortality. C-reactive protein-to-albumin ratio (CAR) demonstrates promise for the prediction of adverse events in multiple orthopaedic and nonorthopaedic surgical conditions. We investigated the relationship between CAR and outcomes after treatment of SEA., Methods: We retrospectively evaluated adult patients treated within a single healthcare system for a diagnosis of SEA (2005 to 2017). Laboratory and clinical data included age at diagnosis, sex, race, body mass index, smoking status, history of intravenous drug use, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and CAR. The primary outcome was the occurrence of any complication; mortality and readmissions were considered secondarily. We used logistic regression to determine the association between baseline CAR and outcomes, adjusting for confounders., Results: We included 362 patients with a 90-day mortality rate of 13.3% and a 90-day complication rate of 47.8%. A reduced complication rate was observed in the lowest decile of CAR values compared with the remaining 90% of patients, a threshold value of 2.5 (27.0% versus 50.2%; odds ratio [OR] 2.66, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.22 to 5.81). CAR values in the highest two deciles experienced significantly increased odds of complications compared with the lowest decile (80th: OR 3.44; 95% CI 1.25 to 9.42; 90th: OR 3.28; 95% CI 1.19 to 9.04)., Discussion: We found elevated CAR to be associated with an increased likelihood of major morbidity in SEA. We suggest using a CAR value of 2.5 as a threshold for enhanced surveillance and recognizing patients with values above 73.7 as being at exceptional risk of morbidity., Level of Evidence: Level III observational cohort study., (Copyright © 2022 by the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.)

Introduction: Endoscopic spine surgery is increasingly being used, and techniques, platforms, and applications are rapidly evolving. Despite substantial enthusiasm surrounding these techniques, there is a dearth of longer term patient-reported clinical outcomes. Within the United States in particular, there are yet to be reported large cohort studies with a notable follow-up. We sought to characterize the clinical outcomes of patients undergoing microendoscopic decompression (MED) for lumbar disk herniations., Methods: The records of patients with symptomatic lumbar disk herniations who underwent MED from May 2018 to February 2021 within a single practice were reviewed. Paired outcomes scores were evaluated using Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System parameters. Basic perioperative data including length of stay, estimated blood loss, mean opioid use, complication rate, and rate of revision were tabulated. Paired sample Student t-tests and paired Wilcoxon sign tests were used to compare normally distributed and nonparametric data, respectively., Results: Thirty-five patients with complete paired patient-reported outcome measures data and a minimum 6-month follow-up were included; 65.7% of the patients were male with a mean age of 47.1 years (SE 1.8). The mean follow-up was 590.6 days (SE 47.7). In total, 34 of the 35 patients (97.1%) were discharged on the day of their procedure. The estimated blood loss was <25 mL for each procedure. The mean opioid use after extubation and before discharge was 10.4 morphine milligram equivalents. At the 2-week follow-up, there were notable improvements in pain metrics and global health components. At the final follow-up, nearly all parameters showed notable improvement that exceeded minimally clinical important difference values. For most parameters, preoperative values outside of the "normal" range were within normal limits on postoperative testing., Discussion: MED resulted in sustained notable improvement in patient-reported outcome measures that exceeded minimally clinical important difference values at the average follow-up approximating 2 years. These findings substantiate the utility of this technique and additional investment in endoscopic spine technology., Data Availability: Not publicly available; available upon request., (Copyright © 2022 by the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.)

Study Design: Retrospective cohort study., Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare segmental and regional radiographic parameters between anterior interbody fusion (ALIF) and posterior interbody fusion (TLIF) for treatment of L5-S1 isthmic spondylolisthesis, and to assess for changes in these parameters over time. Secondarily, we sought to compare clinical outcomes via patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) between techniques and within groups over time., Summary of Background Data: Isthmic spondylolistheses are frequently treated with interbody fusion via ALIF or TLIF approaches. Robust comparisons of radiographic and clinical outcomes are lacking., Methods: We reviewed pre- and postoperative radiographs as well as Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) elements for patients who received L5-S1 interbody fusions for isthmic spondylolisthesis in the Mass General Brigham (MGB) health system (2016-2020). Intraclass correlation testing was used for reliability assessments; Mann-Whitney U tests and Sign tests were employed for intercohort and intracohort comparative analyses, respectively., Results: ALIFs generated greater segmental and L4-S1 lordosis than TLIF, both at first postoperative visit (mean 26 days [SE = 4]; 11.3° vs. 1.3°, P  < 0.001; 6.2° vs. 0.3°, P  = 0.005) and at final follow-up (mean 410days [SE = 45]; 9.6° vs. 0.2°, P < 0.001; 7.9° vs. 2.1°, P = 0.005). ALIF also demonstrated greater increase in disc height than TLIF at first (9.6 vs. 5.5 mm, P < 0.001) and final follow-up (8.7 vs. 3.6 mm, P < 0.001). Disc height was maintained in the ALIF group but decreased over time in the TLIF cohort (ALIF 9.6 vs. 8.7 mm, P = 0.1; TLIF 5.5 vs. 3.6 mm, P < 0.001). Both groups demonstrated improvements in Pain Intensity and Pain Interference scores; ALIF patients also improved in Physical Function and Global Health - Physical domains., Conclusion: ALIF generates greater segmental lordosis, regional lordosis, and restoration of disc height compared to TLIF for treatment of isthmic spondylolisthesis. Additionally, ALIF patients demonstrate significant improvements across more PROMs domains relative to TLIF patients.Level of Evidence: 3., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background/context: Women represent a small minority of practicing orthopedic surgeons and neurosurgeons, with spine surgery having a disproportionately low representation relative to other subspecialties. Previous efforts have attempted to characterize gender patterns in authorship amongst select spine journals. However, no study to our knowledge has done a comprehensive assessment of the influence of gender on academic productivity, impact, and leadership amongst academic spine faculty., Purpose: To evaluate the impact of gender on academic productivity, promotion to leadership positions, and career advancement among academic spine faculty in the United States., Study Design: Cross-sectional study., Patient Sample: Academic spine faculty associated with orthopedic residency, North American Spine Society spine fellowship programs, and American Association of Neurological Surgeons spine fellowship programs., Outcome Measures: Academic productivity as measured by publications counts, h-index, authorship ranking as well as academic rank and leadership roles METHODS: We identified all spine faculty across orthopedic residency, orthopedic spine fellowship, and neurosurgical spine fellowship programs in the United States, and abstracted academic performance characteristics, cumulative h-index, and complete publication records for each individual faculty member. Proportions of men and women by specialty, academic rank, and leadership were compared with Fisher's exact testing, and comparison of mean h-index and publication counts compared with Wilcoxon rank-sum testing. Adjusted analyses on publication count and h-index were achieved with poisson regression analysis with gender as the primary predictor adjusting for specialty, degrees, academic rank, and seniority based on time since fellowship completion., Results: The representation of women among spine faculty associated with orthopedic residency and North American Spine Society spine fellowship programs was 5.6%. On average, women had 40% fewer total publications (p=.025), h-indices approximately 5 units lower than men (p=.006), 40% fewer total high-impact publications (p=.030), half the senior author publications (p=.005), and half the high-impact senior author publications (p=.007) compared to men. After adjusting for seniority and academic rank, the number of publications in high impact journals no longer differed between men and women, although differences persisted for total publication count and the h-index. Men were significantly more likely to occupy higher academic ranks, with 25.6% of men and 9.5% of women holding the rank of full professor (p=.031), although there was no significant difference in the rate of appointment to leadership positions. Similar findings were encountered among American Association of Neurological Surgeons spine fellowship faculty., Conclusions: The present study details the low rate of women in academic spine surgery. Furthermore, gender disparities exist in publication volume, impact, and h-indices. A much lower proportion of women hold higher-ranking academic positions compared to men, though appointment to leadership positions was similar between genders. Differences in seniority and publication metrics may in part be due to the relatively younger cohort of women faculty. These findings underscore the need for active investment in diversity and pipeline efforts that facilitate recruitment and support academic productivity of women in spine surgery., Competing Interests: Declarations of Competing Interests The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Study Design: Retrospective case series study., Objective: Evaluate trends and complications following posterior spinal instrumented fusion for deformity with/without pelvic fixation using the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery Part II Oral Examination Candidate Case List data from 2008 to 2017., Summary of Background Data: Complication rates for cases with pelvic fixation are widely reported in spine deformity literature but are typically derived from practices of senior surgeons. As surgical experience and clinical volume are shown to decrease complication rates, spine surgeons newly in practice may have higher risks of such events., Materials and Methods: Surgical cases submitted by candidates taking the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery Part II Oral Examination between 2008 and 2017 with a self-designated sub-specialty of spine surgery were retrospectively reviewed. Mortality, readmission/reoperation data, and complications as reported by candidates were tracked over time. Bivariate testing and multivariable Poisson analyses, respectively, were used to assess complication rates and time-related trends., Results: A total of 37,539 cases were submitted between 2008 and 2017. Four hundred sixty-one cases (1.2%) were for deformity; of these, 60 cases included pelvic fixation (13% of deformity cases). For all deformity cases, we noted medical, surgical, and overall complication rates to be 17%, 22.3%, and 31.5%. Multivariable analyses demonstrated no difference in surgical/overall complication rates between spinopelvic and nonspinopelvic instrumented groups, but showed a consistently low number of cases using spinopelvic fixation over time., Conclusions: Newly practicing spinal surgeons consistently performed low numbers of deformity cases with relatively high complication rates which remained stable over time., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

The utilization of indirect visualization during procedures has been increasingly replacing traditional forms of direct visualization across many different surgical specialties. The adoption of arthroscopy, using small cameras placed inside joints, has transformed musculoskeletal care over the last several decades, allowing surgeons to provide the same anatomic solutions with less tissue dissection, resulting in lower requirements for inpatient care, reduced costs, and expedited recovery.  For a variety of reasons, spine surgery has lagged behind other specialties in the adoption of indirect visualization.  Nonetheless, patient demand for less invasive spine procedures and surgeon drive to provide these solutions and improve care quality has driven global adoption of spinal endoscopy.  There are numerous endoscopic platforms and techniques currently utilized, and these systems are rapidly evolving.  Additionally, the variance in technology and health system incentives across the globe has generated tremendous regional heterogeneity in the utilization of spinal endoscopic procedures.  We present a consolidated review, including the background, evidence, techniques, and trends in spinal endoscopy, so that clinicians can gain a deeper understanding of this rapidly evolving domain of spinal healthcare., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Study Design: Survey-based study., Objective: We performed a mixed methods study involving patients using telemedicine for spine care. We sought to understand factors influencing the utilization and evaluation of this modality., Summary of Background Data: Telemedicine has been integrated into routine spine care; its long-term viability will depend not only on optimizing its safety, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness, but also on understanding patient valuation of its benefits and limitations., Methods: We used a clinical registry to identify spine patients seen virtually by providers at our tertiary academic medical center between March and September of 2020. We distributed an online survey that queried patients' experiences with telemedicine. We performed statistical analyses of Likert-scale questions and a thematic analysis of free-form responses. Sociodemographic data were abstracted and analyzed., Results: Overall, we evaluated 139 patient surveys. High levels of patient-rated care and patient-rated experience were observed for both in-person and telemedicine visits; however, in-person visits were rated significantly higher in both respects (9.3/10 vs. 8.7/10 for patient-rated care, P < 0.001; 9.0/10 vs. 8.4/10 for patient-rated experience, P = 0.006). A preference for in-person first-time visits was observed which was not maintained for follow up appointments. Both patient and clinical factors influenced perceptions of telemedicine. Thematic analysis of free-form responses provided by 113 patients (81%) generated favorable, unfavorable, and reflective themes, each further contextualized by subthemes. Responders were not significantly different from nonresponders across sociodemographic characteristics., Conclusion: Our quantitative and qualitative findings yield insight into the patient experience of telemedicine in spine care. A preference for in-person visits was notable, particularly for new patient evaluations. This preference was not maintained for follow-up care. Patients acknowledged the benefits of telemedicine and reflected on its effective integration with in-person care. These results may guide best practices to improve access and patient satisfaction in the future.Level of Evidence: 4., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Study Design: Retrospective cohort., Objective: The aim of this study was to elucidate the relative influence of multiple factors on radiation usage for anterior, lateral, and posterior based lumbar interbody fusion techniques., Summary of Background Data: There has been substantial global growth in the performance of lumbar interbody fusions, due to evolution of techniques and approaches and increased attention to sagittal alignment. Utilization of intraoperative imaging guidance has similarly expanded, with a predominance of fluoroscopy and consequent increased radiation exposure. There have been no larger-scale studies examining the role of patient and procedural factors in driving radiation exposure across different interbody techniques., Methods: We used a clinical registry to review all single-level lumbar interbody fusions performed between January 2016 and October 2020. Operative records were reviewed for the amount of radiation exposure during the procedure. Patient age, biologic sex, body mass index (BMI), operative surgeon, surgical level, surgical time, and fusion technique were recorded. Multivariable adjusted analyses using negative binomial regression were used to account for confounding., Results: We included 134 interbody fusions; 80 performed with a posterior approach (TLIF/PLIF), 43 via an anterior approach (ALIF) with posterior pedicle fixation, and 9 performed with a lateral approach (LLIF/XLIF). Average radiation per case was 136.4 mGy (SE 17.3) for ALIF, 108.6 mGy (16.9) for LLIF/XLIF, and 60.5 mGy (7.4) for TLIF/PLIF. We identified lateral approaches, increased BMI, minimally invasive techniques, and more caudal operative levels as significantly associated with increased radiation exposure., Conclusion: We identified several novel drivers of radiation exposure during interbody fusion procedures, including the relative importance of technique and the level at which the fusion is performed. More caudal levels of intervention and lateral based techniques had significantly greater radiation exposure.Level of Evidence: 4., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Megaprostheses as a means of limb salvage originated in orthopaedic oncology, and implant evolution was initially driven by developments within this field. Improvements in imaging modalities and in chemotherapeutics prolonged patient survival and promoted a transformation in the surgeon's mentality from salvage operation to functional limb reconstruction. As primary arthroplasty operations became more popular, megaprostheses found new utility in hip and knee revision arthroplasty. In this capacity, these implants provided much needed alternatives to traditional arthroplasty revision options for addressing massive bone loss and complex periprosthetic fractures. The indications for megaprostheses continue to expand with advances in design, stability, and overall longevity. Thus, greater numbers of orthopaedic surgeons in arthroplasty and traumatology have to be familiar with this technology. Importantly, each anatomic location presents unique considerations for reconstruction; however, additional variables such as the quantity of bone loss, the quality of remaining bone stock, and fracture type also influence implant selection. Ultimately, there is still much to be optimized in the use of megaprostheses for hip and knee revision arthroplasty. High multifactorial complication and revision surgery rates compared with conventional prostheses make these implants for many a "last resort" option., (Copyright © 2021 by the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.)

Purpose: Remote patient monitoring (RPM) has revolutionized the landscape of healthcare. From humble beginnings rooted in landline home telephone calls to present-day devices with near instantaneous wireless connectivity, the evolution of technology has ushered in an era of digital medicine and remote care. Presently, a vast array of healthcare data points can be automatically generated, analyzed, and forwarded to providers to supplement clinical decision-making. While RPM originated and was popularized within medicine, its role in orthopedics, and particularly within spine surgery, is evolving. We sought to provide an overview of RPM within orthopedics, with specific attention on spine care, analyzing its origins, present-day form, and prospects., Methods: We reviewed the literature to date as it pertains to RPM within healthcare at large, orthopedics, and spine care., Results: We detail the development and clinical use of wearable technology and smart implants, examining the underlying technology and evaluating the spectrum of their present-day and potential applications., Conclusions: Technological advancements are not only reshaping the paradigm of musculoskeletal care but are also redefining the physician-patient relationship as well as reimagining traditional perspectives on healthcare data collection and privacy., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Objective: Lumbar interbody fusions are being performed with increased frequency in the last decade. Anterior and posterior interbody techniques have demonstrated relatively similar success rates. Nonetheless, despite increased attention to cost-effective care delivery, approach-related differences in procedural cost and predictors for these differences remain poorly defined. The purpose of this investigation was to characterize the variability in cost for anterior versus posterior-based lumbar interbody fusions and to identify key predictors of procedural cost., Methods: We evaluated the records of all patients who underwent a primary anterior (ALIF) or posterior/transforaminal (PLIF/TLIF) lumbar interbody fusion with concomitant posterior fusion from 2016 to 2020 at four hospitals in a major metropolitan area. We reviewed the records of all included patients and abstracted demographics, insurance status, approach, operative time, diagnosis, surgeon, institution, open versus minimally invasive technique, and components of procedural costs. Costs based upon interbody approach were compared via multivariable adjusted analyses using negative binomial regression., Results: We included 139 interbody fusion procedures; 98 were performed via posterior approach (TLIF/PLIF) and 41 using an anterior approach. Anterior techniques were associated with significantly increased costs as compared to posterior procedures (anterior, $16316 [SE 556] vs. posterior, $9415 [SE 345]; p < 0.001). This determination remained significant following multivariable adjusted analysis (regression coefficient -0.22, 95% CI -0.34, -0.10, p < 0.001). Multivariable analysis also indicated that surgeon, invasiveness, and procedure time were significant predictors of total cost., Conclusion: Our findings demonstrate that anterior interbody techniques are, on average, 173% (anterior, $16316 [SE 556] vs. posterior, $9415 [SE 345]; p < 0.001) more expensive than posterior-based procedures. Given the relative equipoise of these different approaches for many clinical applications, these findings should be considered in an ecosystem increasingly attentive to cost effective care delivery. This work has also provided specific procedural variables for surgeons and systems to target when optimizing procedural costs., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Healthcare disparities are well documented across multiple subspecialties in orthopaedics. The widespread implementation of telemedicine risks worsening these disparities if not carefully executed, despite original assumptions that telemedicine improves overall access to care. Telemedicine also poses unique challenges such as potential language or technological barriers that may alter previously described patterns in orthopaedic disparities., Questions/purposes: Are the proportions of patients who use telemedicine across orthopaedic services different among (1) racial and ethnic minorities, (2) non-English speakers, and (3) patients insured through Medicaid during a 10-week period after the implementation of telemedicine in our healthcare system compared with in-person visits during a similar time period in 2019?, Methods: This was a retrospective comparative study using electronic medical record data to compare new patients establishing orthopaedic care via outpatient telemedicine at two academic urban medical centers between March 2020 and May 2020 with new orthopaedic patients during the same 10-week period in 2019. A total of 11,056 patients were included for analysis, with 1760 in the virtual group and 9296 in the control group. Unadjusted analyses demonstrated patients in the virtual group were younger (median age 57 years versus 59 years; p < 0.001), but there were no differences with regard to gender (56% female versus 56% female; p = 0.66). We used self-reported race or ethnicity as our primary independent variable, with primary language and insurance status considered secondarily. Unadjusted and multivariable adjusted analyses were performed for our primary and secondary predictors using logistic regression. We also assessed interactions between race or ethnicity, primary language, and insurance type., Results: After adjusting for age, gender, subspecialty, insurance, and median household income, we found that patients who were Hispanic (odds ratio 0.59 [95% confidence interval 0.39 to 0.91]; p = 0.02) or Asian were less likely (OR 0.73 [95% CI 0.53 to 0.99]; p = 0.04) to be seen through telemedicine than were patients who were white. After controlling for confounding variables, we also found that speakers of languages other than English or Spanish were less likely to have a telemedicine visit than were people whose primary language was English (OR 0.34 [95% CI 0.18 to 0.65]; p = 0.001), and that patients insured through Medicaid were less likely to be seen via telemedicine than were patients who were privately insured (OR 0.83 [95% CI 0.69 to 0.98]; p = 0.03)., Conclusion: Despite initial promises that telemedicine would help to bridge gaps in healthcare, our results demonstrate disparities in orthopaedic telemedicine use based on race or ethnicity, language, and insurance type. The telemedicine group was slightly younger, which we do not believe undermines the findings. As healthcare moves toward increased telemedicine use, we suggest several approaches to ensure that patients of certain racial, ethnic, or language groups do not experience disparate barriers to care. These might include individual patient- or provider-level approaches like expanded telemedicine schedules to accommodate weekends and evenings, institutional investment in culturally conscious outreach materials such as advertisements on community transport systems, or government-level provisions such as reimbursement for telephone-only encounters., Level of Evidence: Level III, therapeutic study., Competing Interests: Each author certifies that neither he or she, nor any member of his or her immediate family, has funding or commercial associations (consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements, etc.) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article. All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for authors and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® editors and board members are on file with the publication and can be viewed on request., (Copyright © 2021 by the Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons.)

Introduction: The American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery (ABOS) Part II Oral Examination is typically taken two calendar years after fellowship completion. Despite previous studies using ABOS Part II Oral Examination data in other subspecialties, types of cases performed by spine surgeons in initial independent practice have not been well-studied. Such data may help trainees anticipate case composition observed in early practice and allow spine fellowship programs to understand emerging trends., Methods: We retrospectively reviewed surgical cases submitted to the ABOS by candidates taking the Part II Oral Examination between 2008 and 2017 whose designated subspecialty was spine. A hierarchical, restrictive algorithm was used to determine procedures based on candidate-reported International Classification of Diseases 9th/10th Revision and Current Procedural Terminology codes. Adjusted multivariable Poisson regression analyses were used to assess changes in procedure incidence rates over time., Results: We identified 37,539 cases, averaging 3,754 cases/yr, and an average of 49 cases per candidate per 6-month collection period. The most common procedures were lumbar diskectomy (22% of all procedures), posterolateral spinal fusion (PSF) (19%), and anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion (ACDF) (17%). Rates of ACDF and cervical disk arthroplasty significantly increased over time (incidence rate ratios of 1.41 and 23.3 times higher, respectively, at the end of the study period), whereas rates of cervical foraminotomy, lumbar diskectomy, PSF, and structural autograft use decreased (incidence rate ratios of 0.35, 0.84, 0.55, and 0.30). Rates of anterior lumbar interbody fusion/lateral lumbar interbody fusion and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion did not significantly change over the study period., Discussion: Recent spine fellowship graduates are performing more cervical disk arthroplasties and ACDFs while decreasingly using structural autograft as well as performing fewer PSFs and lumbar diskectomies. Techniques such as anterior lumbar interbody fusion/lateral lumbar interbody fusions and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions have not changed significantly over the last decade., Level of Evidence: Level IV (retrospective case series study)., (Copyright © 2021 by the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.)

Background Context: The role of telemedicine within the realm of spine surgery is evolving, catalyzed by the recent pandemic. Specifically, the capability of this technology to provide high-quality, cost-effective care without an in-person interaction and physical examination remains poorly defined., Purpose: To characterize the impact of telemedicine on spine surgical planning by assessing whether surgical plans established in virtual visits changed following in-person evaluation., Study Design: Retrospective cohort study., Patient Sample: We evaluated the records of patients who were indicated for surgery with documented specific surgical plans during a virtual encounter (March-July 2020) and underwent subsequent in-person evaluation prior to surgery., Outcome Measures: We determined whether surgical plans changed between the virtual encounter and the in-person interaction. Secondarily, we reviewed use of the virtual physical examination across surgeons., Methods: We reviewed virtual and in-person clinical encounters from a single academic spine division, evaluating those patients who were seen exclusively via telemedicine encounters and indicated for surgery with documented specific surgical plans. These plans were compared to the surgical plan after these same patients underwent in-person evaluation. Demographic data, patient primary complaint, and the type and extent of physical examination performed by the surgeon were recorded., Results: Of the 33 patients included, the surgical plan did not change among 31 individuals (94%) following in-person interaction. For the two patients where surgical plans were modified, multilevel fusions were increased by one level. There was notable inter- and intra-surgeon variability with regard to the use of virtual physical exams., Conclusions: Our findings suggest that telemedicine evaluations are efficient means of preoperative assessment of spine patients and delineation of surgical plans. These results may support innovations that can optimize access to care for patients., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)