Search

Objective: The goal of this study was to compare rates of dysphagia and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) following long-segment (≥ 3 levels) anterior cervical spinal fusion (ACF) and posterior cervical spinal fusion (PCF) at 3 and 12 months postoperatively. PROs were also compared for patients with dysphagia versus those without dysphagia., Methods: A prospectively collected quality improvement database was used to identify patients who had a long-segment cervical spinal fusion. Cohorts were divided into ACF and PCF groups. Eating Assessment Tool-10 scores and PROs were obtained for all patients preoperatively and at 3 and 12 months postoperatively to compare. Multivariate analysis was also performed to evaluate risk factors for dysphagia., Results: A total of 132 patients met the inclusion criteria, 77 of whom had undergone ACF and 55 of whom had undergone PCF. Dysphagia rates between ACF and PCF cohorts were similar at baseline (13.0% vs 18.2%, p = 0.4). New-onset dysphagia rates were also comparable at 3-month follow-up (39.7% vs 23.1%, p = 0.08) and 12-month follow-up (32.6% vs 32.4%, p > 0.99). Patients who underwent PCF had worse Neck Disability Index (NDI) scores at 3 months than did patients with ACF (13.67 ± 9.49 vs 10.55 ± 6.24, respectively; p = 0.03). There were significantly higher NDI scores for patients with dysphagia at 3 months in both the ACF and PCF groups and at 12 months for those in the PCF group. Analogously, EuroQol-5 Dimensions scores were worse for patients with dysphagia; however, this was only significant for patients in the ACF group at 3 months. There were no significant risk factors for the development of dysphagia found on multivariate analysis., Conclusions: Similar rates and severity of dysphagia were seen following ACF and PCF at 3- and 12-month follow-up. This suggests that long-term dysphagia following cervical fusion surgery may be due to structural changes from the fusion rather than the surgical approach. However, the ACF cohort was significantly younger, and this may have partially accounted for the findings. PROs were also compared for patients with and without dysphagia, demonstrating worsened outcomes in some domains for patients who presented with dysphagia at 3- and 12-month follow-up. This suggests that dysphagia may be associated with a decreased quality of life after cervical fusion.

Midline lumbar interbody fusion (MidLIF) is a mini-open posterior interbody fusion technique defined by a cortical screw trajectory wherein screws are placed from a more medial to lateral trajectory compared with traditional pedicle screws. This enables the surgeon to perform a smaller muscle dissection with the benefits of improved blood loss, less muscle retraction, decreased operative time, shorter length of stay, and improved back pain outcomes compared with the traditional posterior lumbar interbody fusion techniques utilizing pedicle screw fixation. Importantly, MidLIF offers comparable clinical outcomes and radiographic outcomes to other posterior lumbar interbody fusion techniques. In the current review, the authors aimed to educate readers about the MidLIF surgical technique, as well as surgical, clinical, radiographic, cost effectiveness, and biomechanical outcomes, when compared with both open and minimally invasive posterior lumbar interbody fusion techniques with pedicle screw fixation. Readers will be able to utilize this information to determine how the MidLIF procedure compares as an alternative to traditional techniques.

Dysphagia is a regular occurrence after cervical spine surgery, and the development of dysphagia postoperatively is associated with worsened quality of life for patients. Despite the frequency and negative implications of this adverse outcome, there is no clear consensus for defining dysphagia within the spinal literature. Numerous patient-reported outcomes questionnaires are currently used to elucidate the presence and severity of postoperative dysphagia, several of which are not validated instruments. This variability in reporting creates difficulty when trying to determine the prevalence of dysphagia and any potential mitigating factors. In the current review, the authors discuss the causes of postoperative dysphagia after cervical spine surgery, metrics for evaluating postoperative dysphagia, risk factors for the development of this adverse outcome, and strategies for preventing its development. Readers will be able to use this information to improve patient outcomes after cervical spine surgery.

Objective: Postoperative infection remains prevalent after spinal surgical procedures. Institutional protocols for infection prevention have improved rates of infection after spine surgery. However, prior studies have focused on only elective surgical patients. The aim of this study was to determine the efficacy of a multiinstitutional intraoperative sodium oxychlorosene-based infection prevention protocol for decreasing rate of infection after instrumented spinal surgery., Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed at two tertiary care institutions with level I trauma programs, and patients who underwent posterior instrumented spinal fusion between January 1, 2011, and May 31, 2019, were included. Postoperative deep wound infection rates were captured before and after implementation of a multiinstitutional infection prevention protocol. Possible adverse outcomes related to infection prevention techniques were also examined. In addition, consecutive patients treated from January 1, 2018, to May 31, 2019, were prospectively included in a database to collect preoperative and postoperative spine-specific quality of life measures and to assess the impact of postoperative infection on quality of life., Results: A total of 5047 patients fit the inclusion criteria. Of these, 1043 patients underwent surgery prior to protocol implementation. The infection rate of this cohort (3.5%) decreased significantly after protocol implementation (1.2%, p < 0.001). Postoperative sterile seroma rates did not differ between the preprotocol and postprotocol groups (0.7% vs 0.7%, p = 0.5). In the 1031 patients who underwent surgery between January 2018 and May 2019, the fusion rate was 89.2%. Quality of life outcomes between patients with infection and those without infection were similar, although statistical power was limited owing to the low rate of infection. Notably, 2 of 10 patients who developed deep wound infection died of infection-related complications., Conclusions: An intraoperative sodium oxychlorosene-based infection prevention protocol helped to significantly decrease the rate of infection after spine surgery without negatively impacting other postoperative procedure-related metrics. Postoperative wound infection may be associated with higher-than-expected rate of postoperative mortality.

Objective: Patient demographics, comorbidities, and baseline quality of life (QOL) are major contributors to postoperative outcomes. The frequency and cost of lumbar spine surgery has been increasing, with controversy revolving around optimal management strategies and outcome predictors. The goal of this study was to generate predictive nomograms and a clinical calculator for postoperative clinical and QOL outcomes following lumbar spine surgery for degenerative disease., Methods: Patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery for degenerative disease at a single tertiary care institution between June 2009 and December 2012 were retrospectively reviewed. Nomograms and an online calculator were modeled based on patient demographics, comorbidities, presenting symptoms and duration of symptoms, indication for surgery, type and levels of surgery, and baseline preoperative QOL scores. Outcomes included postoperative emergency department (ED) visit or readmission within 30 days, reoperation within 90 days, and 1-year changes in the EuroQOL-5D (EQ-5D) score. Bootstrapping was used for internal validation., Results: A total of 2996 lumbar surgeries were identified. Thirty-day ED visits were seen in 7%, 30-day readmission in 12%, 90-day reoperation in 3%, and improvement in EQ-5D at 1 year that exceeded the minimum clinically important difference in 56%. Concordance indices for the models predicting ED visits, readmission, reoperation, and dichotomous 1-year improvement in EQ-5D were 0.63, 0.66, 0.73, and 0.84, respectively. Important predictors of clinical outcomes included age, body mass index, Charlson Comorbidity Index, indication for surgery, preoperative duration of symptoms, and the type (and number of levels) of surgery. A web-based calculator was created, which can be accessed here: https://riskcalc.org/PatientsEligibleForLumbarSpineSurgery/., Conclusions: The prediction tools derived from this study constitute important adjuncts to clinical decision-making that can offer patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery realistic and personalized expectations of postoperative outcome. They may also aid physicians in surgical planning, referrals, and counseling to ultimately lead to improved patient experience and outcomes.

OBJECTIVE Improvements in imaging technology have steadily advanced surgical approaches. Within the field of spine surgery, assistance from the O-arm Multidimensional Surgical Imaging System has been established to yield superior accuracy of pedicle screw insertion compared with freehand and fluoroscopic approaches. Despite this evidence, no studies have investigated the clinical relevance associated with increased accuracy. Accordingly, the objective of this study was to investigate the clinical outcomes following thoracolumbar spinal fusion associated with O-arm-assisted navigation. The authors hypothesized that increased accuracy achieved with O-arm-assisted navigation decreases the rate of reoperation secondary to reduced hardware failure and screw misplacement. METHODS A consecutive retrospective review of all patients who underwent open thoracolumbar spinal fusion at a single tertiary-care institution between December 2012 and December 2014 was conducted. Outcomes assessed included operative time, length of hospital stay, and rates of readmission and reoperation. Mixed-effects Cox proportional hazards modeling, with surgeon as a random effect, was used to investigate the association between O-arm-assisted navigation and postoperative outcomes. RESULTS Among 1208 procedures, 614 were performed with O-arm-assisted navigation, 356 using freehand techniques, and 238 using fluoroscopic guidance. The most common indication for surgery was spondylolisthesis (56.2%), and most patients underwent a posterolateral fusion only (59.4%). Although O-arm procedures involved more vertebral levels compared with the combined freehand/fluoroscopy cohort (4.79 vs 4.26 vertebral levels; p < 0.01), no significant differences in operative time were observed (4.40 vs 4.30 hours; p = 0.38). Patients who underwent an O-arm procedure experienced shorter hospital stays (4.72 vs 5.43 days; p < 0.01). O-arm-assisted navigation trended toward predicting decreased risk of spine-related readmission (0.8% vs 2.2%, risk ratio [RR] 0.37; p = 0.05) and overall readmissions (4.9% vs 7.4%, RR 0.66; p = 0.07). The O-arm was significantly associated with decreased risk of reoperation for hardware failure (2.9% vs 5.9%, RR 0.50; p = 0.01), screw misplacement (1.6% vs 4.2%, RR 0.39; p < 0.01), and all-cause reoperation (5.2% vs 10.9%, RR 0.48; p < 0.01). Mixed-effects Cox proportional hazards modeling revealed that O-arm-assisted navigation was a significant predictor of decreased risk of reoperation (HR 0.49; p < 0.01). The protective effect of O-arm-assisted navigation against reoperation was durable in subset analysis of procedures involving < 5 vertebral levels (HR 0.44; p = 0.01) and ≥ 5 levels (HR 0.48; p = 0.03). Further subset analysis demonstrated that O-arm-assisted navigation predicted decreased risk of reoperation among patients undergoing posterolateral fusion only (HR 0.39; p < 0.01) and anterior lumbar interbody fusion (HR 0.22; p = 0.03), but not posterior/transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. CONCLUSIONS To the authors' knowledge, the present study is the first to investigate clinical outcomes associated with O-arm-assisted navigation following thoracolumbar spinal fusion. O-arm-assisted navigation decreased the risk of reoperation to less than half the risk associated with freehand and fluoroscopic approaches. Future randomized controlled trials to corroborate the findings of the present study are warranted.