Search

Study Design/setting: Retrospective cohort study., Objective: To characterize the incidence and odds of neurologic adverse events following interlaminar (IL) and transforaminal (TF) cervicothoracic epidural spinal injections (CESI)., Summary of Background Data: CESI may be considered in the management of various cervical pathology. Adverse events, although rare, can be devastating and have been reported following both IL and TF injections. The literature is mixed with regard to the risk-profile of these two types of CESI, but is largely limited to case reports, single centered studies, and literature reviews, which may incompletely characterize the relative risk of these injections at a national level., Methods: All adult patients undergoing IL and TF-CESI were identified from a large, national, multi-insurance database. The incidence of any post-injection neurologic complication was reported per 1,000 patients. The odds of specific neurologic adverse events occurring within 48-hours following TF-CESI, relative to IL-CESI, were compared by multivariable logistic regression controlling for age, sex, and Elixhauser comorbidity index (ECI)., Results: A total of 1,073,215 IL-CESI patients and 220,597 TF-CESI patients were identified. The overall incidence of any neurologic complication following IL and TF-CESI occurred at a rate of 4.15 and 4.56 per 1,000 patients, respectively (P=0.889). TF-CESI was associated with higher odds ratio (OR) of nerve root injury (OR 1.69, P<0.001), but lower odds of epidural hematoma (OR 0.60, P=0.040), relative to IL-CESI. Conversely, no other neurologic adverse events were statistically different between approaches (P>0.05 for all)., Conclusions: Following IL and TF-CESI, adverse events are relatively rare but not absent. Although the odds of the majority of individual neurologic adverse events were found to be similar, both approaches were independently associated with specific complications. Providers should therefore recognize that, at the national level, one CESI approach may not be universally associated with a lower risk of complications., Competing Interests: Financial disclosures/conflicts of interests: Jonathan N. Grauer. is the North American Spine Society Journal Editor-in-chief and member of the North American Spine Society Board, (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Study Design: Retrospective cohort study., Objective: To assess relative odds of perioperative complications, readmissions, and five-year survival to reoperation for three-level lumbar decompression patients who undergo three-level fusion relative to one-level fusion., Background: Patients undergoing multilevel lumbar decompression may be indicated for fusion at one or more levels. The question of fusing only one level with indications such as spondylolisthesis or fusing all levels decompressed is of clinical interest in both the short and longer term., Methods: Patients undergoing three-level lumbar decompression were extracted from the PearlDiver M165Orto database. The subset of these patients undergoing concomitant three-level and one-level lumbar fusion were identified and matched 1:1 based on patient age, sex, and Elixhauser Comorbidity Index (ECI) scores. The incidence and odds of 90-day postoperative adverse events were compared between the two groups by multivariable analysis, and comparative five-year survival to lumbar spinal reoperation was determined., Results: After matching, 28,276 patients were identified as undergoing three-level lumbar decompression with three-level fusion and the same for those undergoing three-level decompression with one-level fusion. Controlling for patient age, sex, and ECI, three-level fusion patients had significantly greater odds ratio (OR) of many 90-day adverse events and aggregated any (OR 1.42), serious (OR 1.44), and minor (OR 1.42) adverse events, as well as readmissions (OR 1.51) (P<0.0001 for all). Five-year survival to reoperation was significantly lower for those undergoing three-level decompression with three-level fusion (P<0.0001)., Conclusions: Three-level lumbar decompression patients who underwent three-level fusion were found to be at significantly greater odds of 90-day postoperative adverse events, readmissions, and five-year reoperations relative to those undergoing one-level fusion. The current data support the concept of limiting fusion to the levels with specific indications in the setting of multi-level lumbar decompressions and not needing to match the decompression and fusion levels., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest & Source of Funding: We have no conflicts of interest to report. No funding was received for completion of this study., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Study Design/setting: Retrospective study., Objective: To understand why patients utilize emergency departments (EDs) versus urgent care centers for low back pain (LBP)., Summary of Background Data: LBP is a common reason for ED visits. In the setting of trauma or recent surgery, the resources of EDs may be needed. However, urgent care centers may be appropriate for other cases., Materials and Methods: Adult patients below 65 years of age presenting to the ED or urgent care on the day of diagnosis of LBP were identified from the 2019 PearlDiver M151 administrative database. Exclusion criteria included history of radiculopathy or sciatica, spinal surgery, spinal cord injury, other traumatic, neoplastic, or infectious diagnoses in the 90 days prior, or Medicare insurance. Patient age, sex, Elixhauser comorbidity index, geographic region, insurance, and management strategies were extracted. Factors associated with urgent care relative to ED utilization were assessed using multivariable analysis., Results: Of 356,284 LBP patients, ED visits were identified for 345,390 (96.9%) and urgent care visits for 10,894 (3.1%). Factors associated with urgent care use relative to the ED were: geographic region [relative to Midwest; Northeast odds ratio (OR): 5.49, South OR: 1.54, West OR: 1.32], insurance (relative to Medicaid; commercial OR: 4.06), lower Elixhauser comorbidity index (OR: 1.28 per two-point decrease), and higher age (OR: 1.10 per decade), female sex (OR: 1.09), and use of advanced imaging (OR: 0.08) within 1 week ( P <0.001 for all)., Conclusions: Most patients presenting for a first diagnosis of isolated LBP went to the ED relative to urgent care. The greatest drivers of urgent care versus ED utilization for LBP were insurance type and geographic region. Utilization of advanced imaging was higher among ED patients, but rates of surgical intervention were similar between those seen in the ED and urgent care., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)