Search

Study Design: Retrospective cohort study., Objective: To evaluate the outcomes and reoperation rates in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis undergoing lumbar anterior vertebral body tethering (AVBT)., Background: AVBT is a viable option for growing children. The benefit of motion preservation must be balanced by a higher reoperation rate. A paucity of reports has addressed lumbar AVBT., Materials and Methods: A single-center retrospective study was conducted to identify all patients who underwent lumbar AVBT (lowest instrumented vertebra L3 or L4) with a minimum of 2 years of follow-up. Clinical and radiographic parameters, including complications and reoperations, were also collected. Statistical analysis was performed using the Student t test for qualitative variables., Results: From a data set of 551 patients, we identified 106 patients (89% female) who underwent a lumbar AVBT (33 lumbar only, 73 bilateral thoracic/lumbar) with a mean follow-up of 4.1 ± 1.6 years at which point 85% (90/106) had reached skeletal maturity. Preoperatively, these patients were skeletally immature (age: 12.8 ± 1.3 yr, Sanders: 3.3 ± 0.8, R = 0.6 ± 0.9) with a lumbar coronal curve angle of 49.6° ± 11.2° which corrected to 19.9° ± 11.2° ( P < 0.0001) at most recent follow-up. At the latest follow-up, 76.4% (81/106) of the patients harbored a coronal curve angle of <30°. Twenty patients (18.9%) underwent 23 reoperations, with overcorrection being the most common (10/23, 43%). Broken tethers led to reoperation in 3 instances (3/23, 13%). Six patients in the cohort needed a posterior spinal fusion (6/106, 5.4%)., Conclusions: Vertebral body tethering is a viable treatment option for skeletally immature patients with idiopathic scoliosis. This report is the largest to date for lumbar AVBT, highlighting that 84% of patients harbored a curve <35° at the latest follow-up but with an 18.9% reoperation rate., Level of Evidence: 3., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Study Design: Retrospective, population-based cohort study., Objective: This study aimed to develop machine learning (ML) models to predict five-year and 10-year mortality in spinal and sacropelvic chordoma patients and integrate them into a web application for enhanced prognostication., Summary of Background Data: Past research has uncovered factors influencing survival in spinal chordoma patients. While identifying individual predictors is important, personalized survival predictions are equally vital. Though prior efforts have resulted in nomograms aiming to serve this purpose, they cannot capture complex interactions within data and rely on statistical assumptions that may not fit real-world data., Methods: Adult spinal and sacropelvic chordoma patients were identified from the National Cancer Database. Sociodemographic, clinicopathologic, diagnostic, and treatment-related variables were utilized as predictive features. Five supervised ML algorithms (TabPFN, CatBoost, XGBoost, LightGBM, and Random Forest) were implemented to predict mortality at five and 10 years postdiagnosis. Model performance was primarily evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC). SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) values and partial dependence plots provided feature importance and interpretability. The top models were integrated into a web application., Results: From the NCDB, 1206 adult patients diagnosed with histologically confirmed spinal and sacropelvic chordomas were retrieved for the five-year mortality outcome [423 (35.1%) with five-year mortality] and 801 patients for the 10-year mortality outcome [588 (73.4%) with 10-year mortality]. Top-performing models for both of the outcomes were the models created with the CatBoost algorithm. The CatBoost model for five-year mortality predictions displayed a mean AUROC of 0.801, and the CatBoost model predicting 10-year mortality yielded a mean AUROC of 0.814., Conclusions: This study developed ML models that can accurately predict five-year to 10-year survival probabilities in spinal chordoma patients. Integrating these interpretable, personalized prognostic models into a web application provides quantitative survival estimates for a given patient. The local interpretability enables transparency into how predictions are influenced. Further external validation is warranted to support generalizability and clinical utility., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Study Design: Retrospective cohort study., Objective: To evaluate the impact of admission status on patient outcomes and healthcare costs in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF)., Summary of Background Data: Undergoing ACDF non-electively has been associated with higher patient comorbidity burdens. However, the impact of non-elective status on the total cost of hospital stay has yet to be quantified., Methods: Patients undergoing ACDF at a single institution were placed into elective or non-elective cohorts. Propensity score-matching analysis in a 5:1 ratio controlling for insurance type and comorbidities was used to minimize selection bias. Demographics were compared by univariate analysis. Cost of care, length of stay (LOS), and clinical outcomes were compared between groups using multivariable linear and logistic regression with elective patients as reference cohort. All analyses controlled for sex, preoperative diagnosis, elixhauser comorbidity index (ECI), age, length of surgery, number of segments fused, and insurance type., Results: Of 708 patients in the final ACDF cohort, 590 underwent an elective procedure and 118 underwent a non-elective procedure. The non-elective group was significantly younger (53.7 vs. 49.5 yr; P = 0.0007). Cohorts had similar proportions of private versus public health insurance, although elective had higher rates of commercial insurance (39.22% vs. 15.25%; P < 0.0001) and non-elective had higher rates of managed care (32.77% vs. 56.78%; P < 0.0001). Operation duration was significantly longer in non-elective patients (158 vs. 177 minutes; P = 0.01). Adjusted analysis also demonstrated that admission status independently affected cost (+$6877, 95% confidence interval [CI]: $4906-$8848; P < 0.0001) and LOS (+4.9 days, 95% CI: 3.9-6.0; P < 0.0001) for the non-elective cohort. The non-elective cohort was significantly more likely to return to the operating room (OR: 3.39; 95% CI: 1.37-8.36, P = 0.0008) and experience non-home discharge (OR: 10.95; 95% CI: 5.00-24.02, P < 0.0001)., Conclusion: Patients undergoing ACDF non-electively had higher cost of care and longer LOS, as well as higher rates of postoperative adverse outcomes.Level of Evidence: 3., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Study Design: Retrospective analysis., Objective: To compare perioperative outcomes and hospitalization costs between patients undergoing primary or revision posterior cervical discectomy and fusion (PCDF)., Summary of Background Data: While prior studies found differences in outcomes between primary and revision anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), risk, and outcome profiles for posterior cervical revision procedures have not yet been elucidated., Methods: Institutional records were queried for cases involving isolated PCDF procedures to evaluate preoperative characteristics and outcomes for patients undergoing primary versus revision PCDF between 2008 and 2016. The primary outcome was perioperative complications, while perioperative and resource utilization measures such as hospitalization length, required stay in the intensive care unit (ICU), direct hospitalization costs, and 30-day emergency department (ED) admissions were explored as secondary outcomes., Results: One thousand one hundred twenty four patients underwent PCDF, with 218 (19.4%) undergoing a revision procedure. Patients undergoing revision procedures were younger (53.0 vs. 60.5 yrs), but had higher Elixhauser scores compared with the non-revision cohort. Revision cases tended to involve fewer spinal segments (3.6 vs. 4.1 segments) and shorter surgical durations (179.3 vs. 206.3 min), without significant differences in estimated blood loss. There were no significant differences in the overall complication rates (P = 0.20), however, the primary cohort had greater rates of required ICU stays (P = 0.0005) and non-home discharges (P = 0.0003). The revision cohort did experience significantly increased odds of 30-day ED admission (P = 0.04) and had higher direct hospitalization (P = 0.03) and surgical (P < 0.0001) costs., Conclusion: Complication rates, including incidental durotomy, were similar between primary and revision PCDF cohorts. Although prior surgery status did not predict complication risk, comorbidity burden did. Nevertheless, patients undergoing revision procedures had decreased risk of required ICU stay but greater risk of 30-day ED admission and higher direct hospitalization and surgical costs.Level of Evidence: 3., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)