Search

Study Design: Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data., Objective: To examine the combined influence of preoperative sleep disturbance and depression on 12-month patient-reported outcomes after lumbar spine surgery (LSS)., Summary of Background Data: Psychological and behavioral factors are considered major risk factors for poor outcomes after LSS. However, there is a need to explore the combined effects of preoperative factors such as sleep disturbance and depression. Understanding the influence of sleep disturbance and depression can inform evidence-based preoperative assessment and shared-decision making of preoperative and postoperative treatment., Methods: Data from 700 patients undergoing LSS were analyzed. Preoperative sleep disturbance and depression were assessed with PROMIS subscales. Established thresholds defined patients with moderate/severe symptoms. Outcomes for disability (Oswestry Disability Index) and back and leg pain (Numeric Rating Scales) were assessed preoperatively and at 12 months. Separate multivariable linear regressions examined the influence of each factor on 12-month outcomes with and without accounting for the other and in combination as a 4-level variable: (1) moderate/severe sleep disturbance alone, (2) moderate/severe depression alone, (3) both moderate/severe sleep disturbance and depression, (4) no moderate/severe sleep disturbance or depression., Results: Preoperative sleep disturbance and depression were associated with 12-month disability and pain ( P <0.05). After accounting for depression, preoperative sleep disturbance remained associated with disability, while preoperative depression adjusting for sleep disturbance remained associated with all outcomes ( P <0.05). Patients reporting both moderate/severe sleep disturbance and moderate/severe depression had 12.6 points higher disability and 1.5 points higher back and leg pain compared with patients without moderate/severe sleep disturbance or depression., Conclusions: The combination of sleep disturbance and depression impacts postoperative outcomes considerably. The high-risk group of patients with moderate/severe sleep disturbance and depression could benefit from targeted treatment strategies., Level of Evidence: Level II., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Study Design: Retrospective analysis of data from the cervical module of a National Spine Registry, the Quality Outcomes Database., Objective: To examine the association of race and ethnicity with patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) at one year after cervical spine surgery., Summary of Background Data: Evidence suggests that Black individuals are 39% to 44% more likely to have postoperative complications and a prolonged length of stay after cervical spine surgery compared with Whites. The long-term recovery assessed with PROMs after cervical spine surgery among Black, Hispanic, and other non-Hispanic groups ( i.e . Asian) remains unclear., Materials and Methods: PROMs were used to assess disability (neck disability index) and neck/arm pain preoperatively and one-year postoperative. Primary outcomes were disability and pain, and not being satisfied from preoperative to 12 months after surgery. Multivariable logistic and proportional odds regression analyses were used to determine the association of racial/ethnic groups [Hispanic, non-Hispanic White (NHW), non-Hispanic Black (NHB), and non-Hispanic Asian (NHA)] with outcomes after covariate adjustment and to compute the odds of each racial/ethnic group achieving a minimal clinically important difference one-year postoperatively., Results: On average, the sample of 14,429 participants had significant reductions in pain and disability, and 87% were satisfied at one-year follow-up. Hispanic and NHB patients had higher odds of not being satisfied (40% and 80%) and having worse pain outcomes (30%-70%) compared with NHW. NHB had 50% higher odds of worse disability scores compared with NHW. NHA reported similar disability and neck pain outcomes compared with NHW., Conclusions: Hispanic and NHB patients had worse patient-reported outcomes one year after cervical spine surgery compared with NHW individuals, even after adjusting for potential confounders, yet there was no difference in disability and neck pain outcomes reported for NHA patients. This study highlights the need to address inherent racial/ethnic disparities in recovery trajectories following cervical spine surgery., Competing Interests: J.S.P. reports personal fees from 3Spine and Steamboat Orthopaedic and Spine Institute. R.A.C. was supported by a Vanderbilt Clinical and Translational Research Scholars award (grant number KL2TR002245) during manuscript development. C.E.B. was supported by a career development award from the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health during manuscript development (K23AT011569). K.R.A. reports personal fees from NeuroSpinal Innovation Inc. and Spine Journal. The remaining authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Study Design: A retrospective cohort study using prospectively collected data., Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate preoperative differences in racial and socioeconomic factors in patients undergoing laminoplasty (LP) versus laminectomy and fusion (LF) for degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM)., Summary of Background Data: DCM is prevalent in the United States, requiring surgical intervention to prevent neurological degeneration. While LF is utilized more frequently, LP is an emerging alternative. Previous studies have demonstrated similar neurological outcomes for both procedures. However, treatment selection is primarily at the discretion of the surgeon and may be influenced by social determinants of health that impact surgical outcomes., Materials and Methods: The Quality Outcome Database (QOD), a national spine registry, was queried for adult patients who underwent either LP or LF for the management of DCM. Covariates associated with socioeconomic status, pain and disability, and demographic and medical history were collected. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to assess patient factors associated with undergoing LP versus LF., Results: Of 1673 DCM patients, 157 (9.4%) underwent LP and 1516 (90.6%) underwent LF. A significantly greater proportion of LP patients had private insurance (P<0.001), a greater than high school level education (P<0.001), were employed (P<0.001), and underwent primary surgery (P<0.001). LP patients reported significantly lower baseline neck/arm pain and Neck Disability Index (P<0.001). In the multivariate regression model, lower baseline neck pain [odds ratio (OR)=0.915, P=0.001], identifying as non-Caucasian (OR=2.082, P<0.032), being employed (OR=1.592, P=0.023), and having a greater than high school level education (OR=1.845, P<0.001) were associated with undergoing LP rather than LF., Conclusions: In DCM patients undergoing surgery, factors associated with patients undergoing LP versus LF included lower baseline neck pain, non-Caucasian race, higher education, and employment. While symptomatology may influence the decision to choose LP over LF, there may also be socioeconomic factors at play. The trend of more educated and employed patients undergoing LP warrants further investigation., Competing Interests: B.F.S. receives institutional research support from Nuvasive and has previously received institutional support from Stryker Spine. A.M.A. receives institutional research support from Stryker Spine. The remaining authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Study Design: Retrospective analysis on prospectively collected data., Objectives: To compare posterior lumbar fusions with versus without an interbody in: (1) Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) at 1 year and (2) postoperative complications, readmission, and reoperations., Summary of Background Data: Elective lumbar fusion is commonly used to treat various lumbar pathologies. Two common approaches for open posterior lumbar fusion include posterolateral fusion (PLF) alone without an interbody and with an interbody through techniques, like transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Whether fusion with or without an interbody leads to better outcomes remains an area of active research., Patients and Methods: The Lumbar Module of the Quality Outcomes Database was queried for adults undergoing elective primary posterior lumbar fusion with or without an interbody. Covariates included demographic variables, comorbidities, primary spine diagnosis, operative variables, and baseline PROs, including Oswestry Disability Index, North American Spine Society satisfaction index, numeric rating scale-back/leg pain, and Euroqol 5-dimension. Outcomes included complications, reoperations, readmissions, return to work/activities, and PROs. Propensity score matching and linear regression modeling were used to estimate the average treatment effect on the treated to assess the impact of interbody use on patient outcomes., Results: After propensity matching, there were 1044 patients with interbody and 215 patients undergoing PLF. The average treatment effect on the treated analysis showed that having an interbody or not had no significant impact on any outcome of interest, including 30-day complications and reoperations, 3-month readmissions, 12-month return to work, and 12-month PROs., Conclusion: There were no discernible differences in outcomes between patients undergoing PLF alone versus with an interbody in elective posterior lumbar fusion. These results add to the growing body of evidence that posterior lumbar fusions with and without an interbody seem to have similar outcomes up to 1 year postoperatively when treating degenerative lumbar spine conditions., Competing Interests: J.S.P reports a past contract with NeuroPoint Alliance Inc. as well as consulting fees from Steamboat Orthopedic Spine Institute and 3Spine. R.G. is a teaching surgeon and consultant for Joimax, teaching and consulting surgeon with royalties from Integrity Implants, a consultant for Arthrex, and a consultant for Nuvasive. S.L.Z. reports being an unaffiliated neurotrauma consultant for the National Football League. B.F.S. reports educational consulting for Medical Device Business Services and a grant from Stryker Spine (R1160501). The remaining authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Study Design: Qualitative interview study., Objective: The aim was to develop a conceptual model for Spine Surgery Recovery in order to better understand why patients undergo lumbar spine surgery and what factors influence patient satisfaction., Summary of Background Data: Quantitative studies have assessed patients' expectations for lumbar spine surgery outcomes, with greater expectation fulfillment leading to higher satisfaction. However, there is limited literature using qualitative methods to understand the patient perspective from the decision to undergo lumbar spine surgery through long-term recovery., Materials and Methods: Semistructured phone interviews were conducted with 20 participants (nine females, mean age ±SD=61.2±11.1 yr) and three focus groups with 12 participants (nine females, mean age ±SD=62.0±10.9 yr). Sessions were audio recorded and transcribed. Two independent researchers coded the transcripts using a hierarchical coding system. Major themes were identified and a conceptual model was developed., Results: A total of 1355 coded quotes were analyzed. The decision to have lumbar spine surgery was influenced by chronic pain impact on daily function, pain coping, and patient expectations. Results demonstrated that fulfilled expectations and setting realistic expectations are key factors for patient satisfaction after surgery, while less known constructs of accepting limitations, adjusting expectations, and optimism were found by many patients to be essential for a successful recovery. Emotional factors of fear, anxiety, and depression were important aspects of presurgical and postsurgical experiences., Conclusion: Our Spine Surgery Recovery conceptual model provides guidance for future research and clinical practice to optimize treatment and improve overall patient satisfaction. Recommendations based on this model include the assessment of patient expectations and mental well-being throughout postoperative recovery as well as preoperatively to help set realistic expectations and improve satisfaction. Educational, acceptance-based or positive psychological interventions may be potentially beneficial for addressing key factors identified in this model., Competing Interests: J.S.P. receives consulting fees from 3 Spine and Steamboat Orthopaedic Spine Institute. K.R.A. receives consulting fees from NeuroSpinal Innovation Inc. and financial support as a deputy editor for Spine. The remaining authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Study Design: Retrospective review., Objective: The aim was to compare outcomes at 3 and 12 months for patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis treated with direct decompression (DD) versus indirect decompression (ID) techniques., Summary of Background Data: Debate persists regarding the optimal surgical strategy to treat lumbar spondylolisthesis. Novel techniques relying on ID have shown superior radiographic outcomes compared to DD, however, doubt remains regarding their effectiveness in achieving adequate decompression. Currently, there is a paucity of data comparing the clinical efficacy of DD to ID., Methods: The Quality Outcomes Database (QOD), a national, multicenter prospective spine registry, was queried for patients who underwent DD and ID between April 2013 and January 2019. Propensity scores for each treatment were estimated using logistic regression dependent on baseline covariates potentially associated with outcomes. The propensity scores were used to exclude nonsimilar patients. Multivariable regression analysis was performed with the treatment and covariate as independent variables and outcomes as dependent variables., Results: A total of 4163 patients were included in the DD group and 86 in the ID group. The ID group had significantly lower odds of having a longer hospital stay and for achieving 30% improvement in back and leg pain at 3 months. These trends were not statistically significant at 12 months. There were no differences in ED5D scores or Oswestry disability index 30% improvement scores at 3 or 12 months. ID patient had a significantly higher rate of undergoing a repeat operation at 3 months (4.9% vs. 1.5%, P =0.015)., Conclusion: Our study suggests that both DD and ID for the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis result in similar clinical outcomes, with the exception that those treated with ID experienced a lower reduction in back and leg pain at 3 months and a higher 3-month reoperation rate. This data can provide surgeons with additional information when counseling patients on the pros and cons of ID versus DD surgery., Competing Interests: Dr J.P. reports a past contract with NeuroPoint Alliance Inc. as well as consulting fees from Steamboat Orthopaedic Spine Institute and 3Spine. Dr K.A. reports a past contract with NeuroPoint Alliance Inc. as well as past consulting fees from Pacira and current consulting fees from NeuroSpinal Innovation Inc. Dr H.N. reports a past contract with NeuroPoint Alliance Inc. Dr S.L.Z. reports being an unaffiliated neurotrauma consultant for the National Football League. Dr B.F.S. reports educational consulting for Medical Device Business Services and a grant from Stryker Spine [R1160501]. The remaining authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Study Design: Retrospective analysis on prospectively collected data., Objective: To determine the effectiveness of elective spine surgery in patients with Parkinson disease (PD)., Background Context: PD has become increasingly prevalent in an aging population. While surgical treatment for degenerative spine pathology is often required in this population, previous literature has provided mixed results regarding its effectiveness., Methods: Data from the Quality Outcomes Database (QOD) was queried between April 2013 and January 2019. Three surgical groups were identified: (1) elective lumbar surgery, (2) elective cervical surgery for myelopathy, (3) elective cervical surgery for radiculopathy. Patients without PD were propensity matched against patients with PD in a 5:1 ratio without replacement based on American Society of Anesthesiology grade, arthrodesis, surgical approach, number of operated levels, age, and baseline Oswestry Disability Index, Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) extremity pain, NRS back pain, and EuroQol 5-Dimensions (EQ-5D). The mean difference was calculated for continuous outcomes (Oswestry Disability Index, NRS leg pain, NRS back pain, and EQ-5D at 3 and 12 mo after surgery) and the risk difference was calculated for binary outcomes (patient satisfaction, complications, readmission, reoperation, and mortality)., Results: For the lumbar analysis, PD patients had a higher rate of reoperation at 12 months (risk difference=0.057, P =0.015) and lower mean EQ-5D score at 12 months (mean difference=-0.053, P =0.005) when compared with patients without PD. For the cervical myelopathy cohort, PD patients had lower NRS neck pain scores at 3 months (mean difference=-0.829, P =0.005) and lower patient satisfaction at 3 months (risk difference=-0.262, P =0.041) compared with patients without PD. For the cervical radiculopathy cohort, PD patients demonstrated a lower readmission rate at 3 months (risk difference=-0.045, P =0.014) compared with patients without PD., Conclusion: For the matched analysis, in general, patients with and without PD had similar patient-reported outcomes and complication, readmission, and reoperation rates. These results demonstrate that a diagnosis of PD alone should not represent a major contraindication to elective spine surgery., Competing Interests: J.S.P. reports a past contract with NeuroPoint Alliance Inc. as well as consulting fees from Steamboat Orthopaedic Spine Institute and 3Spine. K.R.A. reports a past contract with NeuroPoint Alliance Inc., consulting fees from Pacira, current consulting fees from NeuroSpinal Innovation Inc., and honorarium from Spine as an editorial board member. H.N. reports a past contract with NeuroPoint Alliance Inc. S.L.Z. reports being an unaffiliated neurotrauma consultant for the National Football League. B.F.S. reports educational consulting for Medical Device Business Services and a grant from Stryker Spine (R1160501). The remaining authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Study Design: This is a retrospective review of prospectively collected data., Objective: The aim was to evaluate the impact of frailty and sarcopenia on outcomes after lumbar spine surgery., Summary of Background Data: Elderly patients are commonly diagnosed with degenerative spine disease requiring surgical intervention. Frailty and sarcopenia result from age-related decline in physiological reserve and can be associated with complications after elective spine surgery. Little is known about the impact of these factors on patient-reported outcomes (PROs)., Methods: Patients older than 70 years of age undergoing elective lumbar spine surgery were included. The modified 5-item frailty index (mFI-5) was calculated. Sarcopenia was defined using total psoas index, which is obtained by dividing the mid L3 total psoas area by VB area (L3-TPA/VB). PROs included Oswestry disability index (ODI), EuroQual-5D (EQ-5D), numeric rating scale (NRS)-back pain, NRS leg pain (LP), and North American Spine Society (NASS) at postoperative 12 months. Clinical outcomes included length of stay (LOS), 90-day readmission and complications. Univariate and multivariable regression analyses were performed., Results: Total 448 patients were included. The mean mFI-5 index was 1.6±1.0 and mean total psoas index was 1.7±0.5. There was a significant improvement in all PROs from baseline to 12 months ( P <0.0001). After adjusting for age, body mass index, smoking status, levels fused, and baseline PROs, higher mFI-5 index was associated with higher 12-month ODI ( P <0.001), lower 12-month EQ-5D ( P =0.001), higher NRS-L P ( P =0.039), and longer LOS ( P =0.007). Sarcopenia was not associated with 12-month PROs or LOS. Neither sarcopenia or mFI-5 were associated with 90-day complication and readmission., Conclusions: Elderly patients demonstrate significant improvement in PROs after elective lumbar spine surgery. Frailty was associated with worse 12 months postoperative ODI, EQ-5D, NRS-LP scores, and longer hospital stay. While patients with sarcopenia can expect similar outcomes compared with those without, the mFI-5 should be considered preoperatively in counseling patients regarding expectations for disability, health-related quality of life, and leg pain outcomes after elective lumbar spine surgery., Level of Evidence: 3., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: Dr K.R.A. reports personal fees from NeuroSpine Innovation Inc. and past contract with NeuroPoint Alliance Inc. outside the submitted work. J.S.P. reports personal fees from ICZ International Surgical and Steamboat Orthopaedic and Spine Institute. The remaining authors report no conflicts of interest.

Study Design: Retrospective analysis on prospectively collected data., Objective: The aim of this study was to construct a clinical prediction model for 90-day mortality in elderly patients with traumatic spine injuries., Summary of Background Data: Spine trauma in the elderly population is increasing. Comparing elderly spine trauma patients to younger patients with similar injuries proves challenging due to the extensive comorbidities and frailty found in the elderly. There is a paucity of evidence to predict survival of elderly patients following traumatic spinal injuries., Methods: All patients 65+ with spine trauma presenting to a level I trauma center from 2010 to 2019 were reviewed from a prospectively maintained trauma registry. Retrospective chart review was performed to record injury, frailty scores, comorbidities, presence of spinal cord injury, imaging evidence of sarcopenia and osteopenia, mortality, and complications. We preselected 13 variables for our multivariable logistic regression model: hypotension on admission, gender, marital status, age, max Abbreviated Injury Scale, Modified Frailty Index, surgical treatment, hematocrit, white blood count, spinal cord injury, closed head injury, injury level and presence of high energy mechanism. The performance of the prediction model was evaluated using a concordance index and calibration plot. The model was internally validated via bootstrap approach., Results: Over the 9-year period, 1746 patients met inclusion criteria; 359 (20.6%) patients died within 90 days after presenting with spine trauma. The most important predictors for 90-day mortality were age, hypotension, closed head injury, max Abbreviated Injury Scale and hematocrit. There was an optimism-corrected C-index of 0.77. A calculator was created to predict a personalized mortality risk., Conclusion: The incidence of spine trauma in elderly patients continues to increase. Previous publications described preexisting conditions that imply increased mortality, but ours is the first to develop a predictive calculator. Prospective research is planned to externally validate this model to better determine its predictive value and utility in the clinical setting., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Study Design: Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected registry data., Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the performance of 30% reduction to established absolute point-change values for measures of disability and pain in patients undergoing elective cervical spine surgery., Summary of Background Data: Recent studies recommend using a proportional change from baseline instead of an absolute point-change value to define minimum clinically important difference (MCID)., Methods: Analyses included 13,179 patients who underwent cervical spine surgery for degenerative disease between April 2013 and February 2018. Participants completed a baseline and 12-month follow-up assessment that included questionnaires to assess disability (Neck Disability Index [NDI]), neck and arm pain (Numeric Rating Scale [NRS-NP/AP], and satisfaction [NASS scale]). Participants were classified as met or not met 30% reduction from baseline in each of the respective measures. The 30% reduction in scores at 12 months was compared to a wide range of established absolute point-change MCID values using receiver-operating characteristic curves, area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUROC), and logistic regression analyses. These analyses were conducted for the entire patient cohort, as well as for subgroups based on baseline severity and surgical approach., Results: Thirty percent reduction in NDI and NRS-NP/AP scores predicted satisfaction with more accuracy than absolute point-change values for the total population and ACDF and posterior fusion procedures (P < 0.05). The largest AUROC differences, in favor of 30% reduction, were found for the lowest disability (ODI 0-20%: 16.8%) and bed-bound disability (ODI 81%-100%: 16.6%) categories. For pain, there was a 1.9% to 11% and 1.6% to 9.6% AUROC difference for no/mild neck and arm pain (NRS 0-4), respectively, in favor of a 30% reduction threshold., Conclusion: A 30% reduction from baseline is a valid method for determining MCID in disability and pain for patients undergoing cervical spine surgery.Level of Evidence: 3., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Study Design: Secondary analysis of randomized controlled trial data., Objective: The aim of this study was to examine whether preoperative physical performance is an independent predictor of patient-reported disability and pain at 12 months after lumbar spine surgery., Summary of Background Data: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are commonly used to assess clinical improvement after lumbar spine surgery. However, there is evidence in the orthopedic literature to suggest that PROMs should be supplemented with physical performance tests to accurately evaluate long-term outcomes., Methods: A total of 248 patients undergoing surgery for degenerative lumbar spine conditions were recruited from two institutions. Physical performance tests (5-Chair Stand and Timed Up and Go) and PROMs of disability (Oswestry Disability Index: ODI) and back and leg pain (Brief Pain Inventory) were assessed preoperatively and at 12 months after surgery., Results: Physical performance tests and PROMs significantly improved over 12 months following lumbar spine surgery (P < 0.01). Weak correlations were found between physical performance tests and disability and pain (ρ = 0.15 to 0.32, P < 0.05). Multivariable regression analyses controlling for age, education, preoperative outcome score, fusion, previous spine surgery, depressive symptoms, and randomization group found that preoperative 5-Chair Stand test was significantly associated with disability and back pain at 12-month follow-up. Each additional 10 seconds needed to complete the 5-Chair Stand test were associated with six-point increase in ODI (P = 0.047) and one-point increase in back pain (P = 0.028) scores. The physical performance tests identified an additional 14% to 19% of patients as achieving clinical improvement that were not captured by disability or pain questionnaires., Conclusion: Results indicate that physical performance tests may provide distinct information in both predicting and assessing clinical outcomes in patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery. Our findings suggest that the 5-Chair Stand test may be a useful test to include within a comprehensive risk assessment before surgery and as an outcome measure at long-term follow-up., Level of Evidence: 3.

Study Design: Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected registry data., Objective: To develop and validate prediction models for 12-month patient-reported outcomes of disability, pain, and myelopathy in patients undergoing elective cervical spine surgery., Summary of Background Data: Predictive models have the potential to be utilized preoperatively to set expectations, adjust modifiable characteristics, and provide a patient-centered model of care., Methods: This study was conducted using data from the cervical module of the Quality Outcomes Database. The outcomes of interest were disability (Neck Disability Index:), pain (Numeric Rating Scale), and modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association score for myelopathy. Multivariable proportional odds ordinal regression models were developed for patients with cervical radiculopathy and myelopathy. Patient demographic, clinical, and surgical covariates as well as baseline patient-reported outcomes scores were included in all models. The models were internally validated using bootstrap resampling to estimate the likely performance on a new sample of patients., Results: Four thousand nine hundred eighty-eight patients underwent surgery for radiculopathy and 2641 patients for myelopathy. The most important predictor of poor postoperative outcomes at 12-months was the baseline Neck Disability Index score for patients with radiculopathy and modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association score for patients with myelopathy. In addition, symptom duration, workers' compensation, age, employment, and ambulatory and smoking status had a statistically significant impact on all outcomes (P < 0.001). Clinical and surgical variables contributed very little to predictive models, with posterior approach being associated with higher odds of having worse 12-month outcome scores in both the radiculopathy and myelopathy cohorts (P < 0.001). The full models overall discriminative performance ranged from 0.654 to 0.725., Conclusions: These predictive models provide individualized risk-adjusted estimates of 12-month disability, pain, and myelopathy outcomes for patients undergoing spine surgery for degenerative cervical disease. Predictive models have the potential to be used as a shared decision-making tool for evidence-based preoperative counselling., Level of Evidence: 2.

Study Design: Longitudinal Cohort Study OBJECTIVE.: The aim of this study was to determine whether duration of postoperative opioids is associated with long-term outcomes, and if initial postoperative opioid dosage is associated with opioid cessation after spine surgery., Summary of Background Data: Preoperative opioid use is associated with poor outcomes, but little evidence exists regarding the implications of opioid dosage and duration after spine surgery., Methods: Data from our state's prescription drug database was linked to our prospective clinical spine registry to analyze opioid dispensing and outcomes in elective surgical spine patients between 2010 and 2017. Patients were stratified based on preoperative chronic opioid use and multivariable regression was used to assess associations between duration of postoperative opioids and outcomes at one year, including satisfaction, chronic opioid use, and meaningful improvements in pain, disability, and quality of life. In a secondary aim, a Cox proportional hazards model was used to determine whether initial postoperative opioid dosage was associated with time to opioid cessation., Results: Of 2172 patients included, 35% had preoperative chronic opioid use. In patients without preoperative chronic opioid use, a postoperative opioid duration of 31 to 60 days was associated with chronic opioid use at 1 year (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 4.1 [1.7-9.8]) and no meaningful improvement in extremity pain (aOR: 1.8 [1.3-2.6]) or axial pain (aOR: 1.6 [1.1-2.2]); cessation between 61 and 90 days was associated with no meaningful improvement in disability (aOR: 2 [1.3-3]) and dissatisfaction (aOR:1.8 [1-3.1]). In patients with preoperative chronic opioid use, postoperative opioids for ≥90 days was associated with dissatisfaction. Cox regression analyses showed lower initial postoperative opioid dosages were associated with faster opioid cessation in both groups., Conclusion: Our results suggest that a shorter duration of postoperative opioids may result in improved 1-year patient-reported outcomes, and that lower postoperative opioid dosages may lead to faster opioid cessation., Level of Evidence: 2.

Study Design: Pilot randomized controlled trial., Objective: To examine the acceptability and preliminary safety and outcome effects of an early self-directed home exercise program (HEP) performed within the first 6 weeks after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF)., Summary of Background Data: Little is known regarding optimal postoperative management after ACDF., Methods: Thirty patients (mean ± standard deviation, age = 50.6 ± 11.0 years, 16 women) undergoing ACDF were randomized to receive an early HEP (n = 15) or usual care (n = 15). The early HEP was a 6-week self-directed program with weekly supportive telephone calls to reduce pain and improve activity. Treatment acceptability was assessed after the intervention period (6 weeks after surgery). Safety (adverse events, radiographic fusion, revision surgery) was determined at routine postoperative visits. Disability (Neck Disability Index), pain intensity (Numeric Rating Scale for neck and arm pain), physical and mental health (SF-12), and opioid use were assessed preoperatively, and at 6 weeks and 6 and 12 months after surgery by an evaluator blinded to group assignment., Results: Participants reported high levels of acceptability and no serious adverse events with the early HEP. No difference in fusion rate was observed between groups (P > 0.05) and no participants underwent revision surgery. The early self-directed HEP group reported lower 6-week neck pain than the usual care group (F = 3.3, P = 0.04, r = 0.3, mean difference = -1.7 [-3.4; -0.05]) and lower proportion of individuals (13% vs. 47%) using opioids at 12 months (P = 0.05). No other between-group outcome differences were observed (P > 0.05)., Conclusion: An early self-directed HEP program was acceptable to patients and has the potential to be safely administered to patients immediately after ACDF. Benefits were noted for short-term neck pain and long-term opioid utilization. However, larger trials are needed to confirm safety with standardized and long-term radiograph assessment and treatment efficacy., Level of Evidence: 2.

Study Design: Longitudinal Cohort Study., Objective: Determine 1-year patient-reported outcomes associated with preoperative chronic opioid therapy and high-preoperative opioid dosages in patients undergoing elective spine surgery., Summary of Background Data: Back pain is the most disabling condition worldwide and over half of patients presenting for spine surgery report using opioids. Preoperative dosage has been correlated with poor outcomes, but published studies have not assessed the relationship of both preoperative chronic opioids and opioid dosage with patient-reported outcomes., Methods: For patients undergoing elective spine surgery between 2010 and 2017, our prospective institutional spine registry data was linked to opioid prescription data collected from our state's Prescription Drug Monitoring Program to analyze outcomes associated with preoperative chronic opioid therapy and high-preoperative opioid dosage, while adjusting for confounders through multivariable regression analyses. Outcomes included 1-year meaningful improvements in pain, function, and quality of life. Additional outcomes included 1-year satisfaction, return to work, 90-day complications, and postoperative chronic opioid use., Results: Of 2128 patients included, preoperative chronic opioid therapy was identified in 21% and was associated with significantly higher odds (adjusted odds ratio [95% confidence interval]) of not achieving meaningful improvements at 1-year in extremity pain (aOR:1.5 [1.2-2]), axial pain (aOR:1.7 [1.4-2.2]), function (aOR:1.7 [1.4-2.2]), and quality of life (aOR:1.4 [1.2-1.9]); dissatisfaction (aOR:1.7 [1.3-2.2]); 90-day complications (aOR:2.9 [1.7-4.9]); and postoperative chronic opioid use (aOR:15 [11.4-19.7]). High-preoperative opioid dosage was only associated with postoperative chronic opioid use (aOR:4.9 [3-7.9])., Conclusion: Patients treated with chronic opioids prior to spine surgery are significantly less likely to achieve meaningful improvements at 1-year in pain, function, and quality of life; and less likely to be satisfied at 1-year with higher odds of 90-day complications, regardless of dosage. Both preoperative chronic opioid therapy and high-preoperative dosage are independently associated with postoperative chronic opioid use., Level of Evidence: 2.

Study Design: This study retrospectively analyzes prospectively collected data., Objective: Here we aim to develop predictive models for 3-month medical and surgical readmission after elective lumbar surgery, based on a multi-institutional, national spine registry., Summary of Background Data: Unplanned readmissions place considerable stress on payers, hospitals, and patients. Medicare data reveals a 30-day readmission rate of 7.8% for lumbar-decompressions and 13.0% for lumbar-fusions, and hospitals are now being penalized for excessive 30-day readmission rates by virtue of the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program., Methods: The Quality and Outcomes Database (QOD) was queried for patients undergoing elective lumbar surgery for degenerative diseases. The QOD prospectively captures 3-month readmissions through electronic medical record (EMR) review and self-reported outcome questionnaires. Distinct multivariable logistic regression models were fitted for surgery-related and medical readmissions adjusting for patient and surgery-specific variables., Results: Of the total 33,674 patients included in this study 2079 (6.15%) reported at least one readmission during the 90-day postoperative period. The odds of medical readmission were significantly higher for older patients, males versus females, African Americans versus Caucasion, those with higher American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, diabetes, coronary artery disease, higher numbers of involved levels, anterior only or anterior-posterior versus posterior approach; also, for patients who were unemployed compared with employed patients and those with high baseline Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). The odds of surgery-related readmission were significantly greater for patients with a higher body mass index (BMI), a higher ASA grade, female versus male, and African Americans versus Caucasians; also, for patients with severe depression, more involved spinal levels, anterior-only surgical approaches and higher baseline ODI scores., Conclusion: In this study we present internally validated predictive models for medical and surgical readmission after elective lumbar spine surgery. These findings set the stage for targeted interventions with a potential to reduce unnecessary readmissions, and also suggest that medical and surgical readmissions be treated as distinct clinical events., Level of Evidence: 3.