Search

OBJECTIVE The American Spine Registry (ASR) is a collaborative effort between the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons and the American Association of Neurological Surgeons. The goal of this study was to evaluate how representative the ASR is of the national practice with spinal procedures, as recorded in the National Inpatient Sample (NIS). METHODS The authors queried the NIS and the ASR for cervical and lumbar arthrodesis cases performed during 2017–2019. International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision and Current Procedural Terminology codes were used to identify patients undergoing cervical and lumbar procedures. The two groups were compared for the overall proportion of cervical and lumbar procedures, age distribution, sex, surgical approach features, race, and hospital volume. Outcomes available in the ASR, such as patient-reported outcomes and reoperations, were not analyzed due to nonavailability in the NIS. The representativeness of the ASR compared to the NIS was assessed via Cohen’s d effect sizes, and absolute standardized mean differences (SMDs) of < 0.2 were considered trivial, whereas > 0.5 were considered moderately large. RESULTS A total of 24,800 arthrodesis procedures were identified in the ASR for the period between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2019. During the same time period, 1,305,360 cases were recorded in the NIS. Cervical fusions comprised 35.9% of the ASR cohort (8911 cases) and 36.0% of the NIS cohort (469,287 cases). The two databases presented trivial differences in terms of patient age and sex for all years of interest across both cervical and lumbar arthrodeses (SMD < 0.2). Trivial differences were also noted in the distribution of open versus percutaneous procedures of the cervical and lumbar spine (SMD < 0.2). Among lumbar cases, anterior approaches were more common in the ASR than in the NIS (32.1% vs 22.3%, SMD = 0.22), but the discrepancy among cervical cases in the two databases was trivial (SMD = 0.03). Small differences were illustrated in terms of race, with SMDs < 0.5, and a more significant discrepancy was identified in the geographic distribution of participating sites (SMDs of 0.7 and 0.74 for cervical and lumbar cases, respectively). For both of these measures, SMDs in 2019 were smaller than those in 2018 and 2017. CONCLUSIONS The ASR and NIS databases presented a very high similarity in proportions of cervical and lumbar spine surgeries, as well as similar distributions of age and sex, and distribution of open versus endoscopic approach. Slight discrepancies in anterior versus posterior approach among lumbar cases and patient race, and more significant discrepancies in geographic representation were also identified, yet decreasing trends in differences suggested the improving representativeness of the ASR over the course of time and its progressive growth. These conclusions are important to underline the external validity of quality investigations and research conclusions to be drawn from analyses in which the ASR is used.

OBJECTIVE The Quality Outcomes Database (QOD) was established in 2012 by the NeuroPoint Alliance, a nonprofit organization supported by the American Association of Neurological Surgeons. Currently, the QOD has launched six different modules to cover a broad spectrum of neurosurgical practice—namely lumbar spine surgery, cervical spine surgery, brain tumor, stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), functional neurosurgery for Parkinson’s disease, and cerebrovascular surgery. This investigation aims to summarize research efforts and evidence yielded through QOD research endeavors. METHODS The authors identified all publications from January 1, 2012, to February 18, 2023, that were produced by using data collected prospectively in a QOD module without a prespecified research purpose in the context of quality surveillance and improvement. Citations were compiled and presented along with comprehensive documentation of the main study objective and take-home message. RESULTS A total of 94 studies have been produced through QOD efforts during the past decade. QOD-derived literature has been predominantly dedicated to spinal surgical outcomes, with 59 and 22 studies focusing on lumbar and cervical spine surgery, respectively, and 6 studies focusing on both. More specifically, the QOD Study Group—a research collaborative between 16 high-enrolling sites—has yielded 24 studies on lumbar grade 1 spondylolisthesis and 13 studies on cervical spondylotic myelopathy, using two focused data sets with high data accuracy and long-term follow-up. The more recent neuro-oncological QOD efforts, i.e., the Tumor QOD and the SRS Quality Registry, have contributed 5 studies, providing insights into the real-world neuro-oncological practice and the role of patient-reported outcomes. CONCLUSIONS Prospective quality registries are an important resource for observational research, yielding clinical evidence to guide decision-making across neurosurgical subspecialties. Future directions of the QOD efforts include the development of research efforts within the neuro-oncological registries and the American Spine Registry—which has now replaced the inactive spinal modules of the QOD—and the focused research on high-grade lumbar spondylolisthesis and cervical radiculopathy.

OBJECTIVE Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) have become the standard means to measure surgical outcomes. Insurers and policy makers are also increasingly utilizing PROs to assess the value of care and measure different aspects of a patient’s condition. For cervical myelopathy, it is currently unclear which outcome measure best reflects patient satisfaction. In this investigation, the authors evaluated patients treated for cervical myelopathy to determine which outcome questionnaires best correlate with patient satisfaction. METHODS The Quality Outcomes Database (QOD), a prospectively collected multi-institutional database, was used to retrospectively analyze patients undergoing surgery for cervical myelopathy. The North American Spine Society (NASS) satisfaction index, Neck Disability Index (NDI), numeric rating scales for neck pain (NP-NRS) and arm pain (AP-NRS), EQ-5D, and modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association (mJOA) scale were evaluated. RESULTS The analysis included 1141 patients diagnosed with myelopathy, of whom 1099 had an NASS satisfaction index recorded at any of the follow-up time points. Concomitant radiculopathy was an indication for surgery in 368 (33.5%) patients, and severe neck pain (NP-NRS ≥ 7) was present in 471 (42.8%) patients. At the 3-month follow-up, NASS patient satisfaction index scores were positively correlated with scores for the NP-NRS (r = 0.30), AP-NRS (r = 0.32), and NDI (r = 0.36) and negatively correlated with EQ-5D (r = −0.38) and mJOA (r = −0.29) scores (all p < 0.001). At the 12-month follow-up, scores for the NASS index were positively correlated with scores for the NP-NRS (r = 0.44), AP-NRS (r = 0.38), and NDI (r = 0.46) and negatively correlated with scores for the EQ-5D (r = −0.40) and mJOA (r = −0.36) (all p < 0.001). At the 24-month follow-up, NASS index scores were positively correlated with NP-NRS (r = 0.49), AP-NRS (r = 0.36), and NDI (r = 0.49) scores and negatively correlated with EQ-5D (r = −0.44) and mJOA (r = −0.38) scores (all p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS Neck pain was highly prevalent in patients with myelopathy. Notably, improvement in neck pain–associated disability rather than improvement in myelopathy was the most prominent PRO factor for patients. This finding may reflect greater patient concern for active pain symptoms than for neurological symptoms caused by myelopathy. As commercial payers begin to examine novel remuneration strategies for surgical interventions, thoughtful analysis of PRO measurements will have increasing relevance.

OBJECTIVE Cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) is a common progressive spine disorder affecting predominantly middle-aged and elderly populations. With increasing life expectancy, the incidence of CSM is expected to rise further. The outcomes of elderly patients undergoing CSM surgery and especially their quality of life (QOL) postoperatively remain undetermined. This study retrospectively reviewed patients to identify baseline differences and validated postoperative patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures in elderly patients undergoing CSM surgery. METHODS The multi-institutional, neurosurgery-specific NeuroPoint Quality Outcomes Database was queried to identify CSM patients treated surgically at the 14 highest-volume sites from January 2016 to December 2018. Patients were divided into three groups: young (< 65 years), early elderly (65–74 years), and late elderly (≥ 75 years). Demographic and PRO measures (Neck Disability Index [NDI] score, modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association [mJOA] score, EQ-5D score, EQ-5D visual analog scale [VAS] score, arm pain VAS, and neck pain VAS) were compared among the groups at baseline and 3 and 12 months postoperatively. RESULTS A total of 1151 patients were identified: 691 patients (60%) in the young, 331 patients (28.7%) in the early elderly, and 129 patients (11.2%) in the late elderly groups. At baseline, younger patients presented with worse NDI scores (p < 0.001) and lower EQ-5D VAS (p = 0.004) and EQ-5D (p < 0.001) scores compared with early and late elderly patients. No differences among age groups were found in the mJOA score. An improvement of all QOL scores was noted in all age groups. On unadjusted analysis at 3 months, younger patients had greater improvement in arm pain VAS, NDI, and EQ-5D VAS compared with early and late elderly patients. At 12 months, the same changes were seen, but on adjusted analysis, there were no differences in PROs between the age groups. CONCLUSIONS The authors’ results indicate that elderly patients undergoing CSM surgery achieved QOL outcomes that were equivalent to those of younger patients at the 12-month follow-up.

OBJECTIVELumbar fusion can lead to significant improvements in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with degenerative conditions. It is unknown whether the presence of hip or knee arthritis confounds the responses of patients to low-back–specific PROs. This study examined PROs with lumbar fusion in patients with concomitant lower-extremity arthritis. The purpose of the current study was to examine whether patients with significant lower-extremity arthritis who undergo lumbar fusion achieve similar improvements in low-back–specific PROs compared to patients without lower-extremity arthritis.METHODSPatients were identified from a prospectively enrolled multicenter registry of patients undergoing lumbar fusion surgery for degenerative conditions. Two hundred thirty patients identified with lumbar fusion and who also had concomitant lower-extremity arthritis were propensity matched to 233 patients who did not have lower-extremity arthritis based on age, BMI, sex, smoking status, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, number of levels fused, and surgical approach. One-year improvement in PROs, numeric rating scales (0–10) for back and leg pain, and the Oswestry Disability Index and EuroQol-5D scores were compared for patients with and without lower-extremity arthritis.RESULTSBaseline demographics and preoperative outcome measures did not differ between the two propensity-matched groups with 110 cases each. Patients with concomitant lower-extremity arthritis achieved similar improvement in health-related quality-of-life measures to patients without lower-extremity arthritis, with no significant differences between the groups (p > 0.10).CONCLUSIONSThe presence of lower-extremity arthritis does not adversely affect the results of lumbar fusion in properly selected patients. Patients with lower-extremity arthritis who undergo lumbar fusion can achieve meaningful improvement in PROs similar to patients without arthritis.

OBJECTIVENational databases collect large amounts of clinical information, yet application of these data can be challenging. The authors present the NeuroPoint Alliance and Institute for Healthcare Improvement (NPA-IHI) program as a novel attempt to create a quality improvement (QI) tool informed through registry data to improve the quality of care delivered. Reducing the length of stay (LOS) and readmission after elective lumbar fusion was chosen as the pilot module.METHODSThe NPA-IHI program prospectively enrolled patients undergoing elective 1- to 3-level lumbar fusions across 8 institutions. A three-pronged approach was taken that included the following phases: 1) Research Phase, 2) Development Phase, and 3) Implementation Phase. Primary outcomes were LOS and readmission. From January to June 2017, a learning system was created utilizing monthly conference calls, weekly data submission, and continuous refinement of the proposed QI tool. Nonparametric tests were used to assess the impact of the QI intervention.RESULTSThe novel QI tool included the following three areas of intervention: 1) preoperative discharge assessment (location, date, and instructions), 2) inpatient changes (LOS rounding checklist, daily huddle, and pain assessments), and 3) postdischarge calls (pain, primary care follow-up, and satisfaction). A total of 209 patients were enrolled, and the most common procedure was a posterior laminectomy/fusion (60.2%). Seven patients (3.3%) were readmitted during the study period. Preoperative discharge planning was completed for 129 patients (61.7%). A shorter median LOS was seen in those with a known preoperative discharge date (67 vs 80 hours, p = 0.018) and clear discharge instructions (71 vs 81 hours, p = 0.030). Patients with a known preoperative discharge plan also reported significantly increased satisfaction (8.0 vs 7.0, p = 0.028), and patients with increased discharge readiness (scale 0–10) also reported higher satisfaction (r = 0.474, p < 0.001). Those receiving postdischarge calls (76%) had a significantly shorter LOS than those without postdischarge calls (75 vs 99 hours, p = 0.020), although no significant relationship was seen between postdischarge calls and readmission (p = 0.342).CONCLUSIONSThe NPA-IHI program showed that preoperative discharge planning and postdischarge calls have the potential to reduce LOS and improve satisfaction after elective lumbar fusion. It is our hope that neurosurgical providers can recognize how registries can be used to both develop and implement a QI tool and appreciate the importance of QI implementation as a separate process from data collection/analysis.

OBJECTIVEUnexpected nonhome discharge causes additional costs in the current reimbursement models, especially to the payor. Nonhome discharge is also related to longer length of hospital stay and therefore higher healthcare costs to society. With increasing demand for spine surgery, it is important to minimize costs by streamlining discharges and reducing length of hospital stay. Identifying factors associated with nonhome discharge can be useful for early intervention for discharge planning. The authors aimed to identify the drivers of nonhome discharge in patients undergoing 1- or 2-level instrumented lumbar fusion.METHODSThe electronic medical records from a single-center hospital administrative database were analyzed for consecutive patients who underwent 1- to 2-level instrumented lumbar fusion for degenerative lumbar conditions during the period from 2016 to 2018. Discharge disposition was determined as home or nonhome. A logistic regression analysis was used to determine associations between nonhome discharge and age, sex, body mass index (BMI), race, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, smoking status, marital status, insurance type, residence in an underserved zip code, and operative factors.RESULTSA total of 1502 patients were included. The majority (81%) were discharged home. Factors associated with a nonhome discharge were older age, higher BMI, living in an underserved zip code, not being married, being on government insurance, and having more levels fused. Patients discharged to a nonhome facility had longer lengths of hospital stay (5.6 vs 3.0 days, p < 0.001) and significantly increased hospital costs ($21,204 vs $17,518, p < 0.001).CONCLUSIONSIncreased age, greater BMI, residence in an underserved zip code, not being married, and government insurance are drivers for discharge to a nonhome facility after a 1- to 2-level instrumented lumbar fusion. Early identification and intervention for these patients, even before admission, may decrease the length of hospital stay and medical costs.

OBJECTIVELoss to follow-up has been shown to bias outcomes assessment among studies utilizing clinical registries. Here, the authors analyzed patients enrolled in a national surgical registry and compared the baseline characteristics of patients captured with those lost to follow-up at 2 years.METHODSThe authors queried the Quality Outcomes Database for patients with grade I lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis undergoing a surgical intervention between July 2014 and June 2016. Only those patients enrolled in a multisite study investigating the impact of fusion on clinical and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) among patients with grade I spondylolisthesis were evaluated.RESULTSOf the 608 patients enrolled in the study undergoing 1- or 2-level decompression (23.0%, n = 140) or 1-level fusion (77.0%, n = 468), 14.5% (n = 88) were lost to follow-up at 2 years. Patients who were lost to follow-up were more likely to be younger (59.6 ± 13.5 vs 62.6 ± 11.7 years, p = 0.031), be employed (unemployment rate: 53.3% [n = 277] for successful follow-up vs 40.9% [n = 36] for those lost to follow-up, p = 0.017), have anxiety (26.1% [n = 23] vs 16.3% [n = 85], p = 0.026), have higher back pain scores (7.4 ± 2.9 vs 6.6 ± 2.8, p = 0.010), have higher leg pain scores (7.4 ± 2.5 vs 6.4 ± 2.9, p = 0.003), have higher Oswestry Disability Index scores (50.8 ± 18.7 vs 46 ± 16.8, p = 0.018), and have lower EQ-5D scores (0.481 ± 0.2 vs 0.547 ± 0.2, p = 0.012) at baseline.CONCLUSIONSTo execute future, high-quality studies, it is important to identify patients undergoing surgery for spondylolisthesis who might be lost to follow-up. In a large, prospective registry, the authors found that those lost to follow-up were more likely to be younger, be employed, have anxiety disorder, and have worse PRO scores.

OBJECTIVEMedical comorbidities, particularly preoperatively diagnosed anxiety, depression, and obesity, may influence how patients perceive and measure clinical benefit after a surgical intervention. The current study was performed to define and compare the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) thresholds in patients with and without preoperative diagnoses of anxiety or depression and obesity who underwent spinal fusion for grade 1 degenerative spondylolisthesis.METHODSThe Quality Outcomes Database (QOD) was queried for patients who underwent lumbar fusion for grade 1 degenerative spondylolisthesis during the period from January 2014 to August 2017. Collected patient-reported outcomes (PROs) included the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), health status (EQ-5D), and numeric rating scale (NRS) scores for back pain (NRS-BP) and leg pain (NRS-LP). Both anchor-based and distribution-based methods for MCID calculation were employed.RESULTSOf 462 patients included in the prospective registry who underwent a decompression and fusion procedure, 356 patients (77.1%) had complete baseline and 12-month PRO data and were included in the study. The MCID values for ODI scores did not significantly differ in patients with and those without a preoperative diagnosis of obesity (20.58 and 20.69, respectively). In addition, the MCID values for ODI scores did not differ in patients with and without a preoperative diagnosis of anxiety or depression (24.72 and 22.56, respectively). Similarly, the threshold MCID values for NRS-BP, NRS-LP, and EQ-5D scores were not statistically different between all groups. Based on both anchor-based and distribution-based methods for determination of MCID thresholds, there were no statistically significant differences between all cohorts.CONCLUSIONSMCID thresholds were similar for ODI, EQ-5D, NRS-BP, and NRS-LP in patients with and without preoperative diagnoses of anxiety or depression and obesity undergoing spinal fusion for grade 1 degenerative spondylolisthesis. Preoperative clinical and shared decision-making may be improved by understanding that preoperative medical comorbidities may not affect the way patients experience and assess important clinical changes postoperatively.

OBJECTIVELumbar decompression without arthrodesis remains a potential treatment option for cases of low-grade spondylolisthesis (i.e., Meyerding grade I). Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) techniques have recently been increasingly used because of their touted benefits including lower operating time, blood loss, and length of stay. Herein, the authors analyzed patients enrolled in a national surgical registry and compared the baseline characteristics and postoperative clinical and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) between patients undergoing open versus MIS lumbar decompression.METHODSThe authors queried the Quality Outcomes Database for patients with grade I lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis undergoing a surgical intervention between July 2014 and June 2016. Among more than 200 participating sites, the 12 with the highest enrollment of patients into the lumbar spine module came together to initiate a focused project to assess the impact of fusion on PROs in patients undergoing surgery for grade I lumbar spondylolisthesis. For the current study, only patients in this cohort from the 12 highest-enrolling sites who underwent a decompression alone were evaluated and classified as open or MIS (tubular decompression). Outcomes of interest included PROs at 2 years; perioperative outcomes such as blood loss and complications; and postoperative outcomes such as length of stay, discharge disposition, and reoperations.RESULTSA total of 140 patients undergoing decompression were selected, of whom 71 (50.7%) underwent MIS and 69 (49.3%) underwent an open decompression. On univariate analysis, the authors observed no significant differences between the 2 groups in terms of PROs at 2-year follow-up, including back pain, leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index score, EQ-5D score, and patient satisfaction. On multivariable analysis, compared to MIS, open decompression was associated with higher satisfaction (OR 7.5, 95% CI 2.41–23.2, p = 0.0005). Patients undergoing MIS decompression had a significantly shorter length of stay compared to the open group (0.68 days [SD 1.18] vs 1.83 days [SD 1.618], p < 0.001).CONCLUSIONSIn this multiinstitutional prospective study, the authors found comparable PROs as well as clinical outcomes at 2 years between groups of patients undergoing open or MIS decompression for low-grade spondylolisthesis.

OBJECTIVEThe Scoliosis Research Society-22r questionnaire (SRS-22r) has been shown to be reliable, valid, and responsive to change in patients with adult spinal deformity (ASD) undergoing surgery. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is the smallest difference in a health-related quality of life score that is considered to be worthwhile or clinically important to the individual. The authors hypothesized that the proportion of patients with ASD achieving an MCID in the SRS-22r score would be different between two culturally different cohorts. The purpose of this study was to compare the proportion of patients with ASD achieving MCID for the SRS-22r domains in North American (NA) and Japanese cohorts.METHODSA total of 137 patients from North America (123 women, mean age 60.0 years) and 60 patients from Japan (56 women, mean age 65.5 years) with at least 2 years of follow-up after corrective spine surgery for ASD were included. Except for self-image, published Japanese MCID values of SRS-22r for ASD were higher (function = 0.90, pain = 0.85, self-image = 1.05, subtotal = 1.05) than the published NA MCID values (function = 0.60, pain = 0.40, self-image = 1.23, subtotal = 0.43).RESULTSThere was a statistically significant improvement in all SRS-22r domain scores at 2 years compared to baseline in both cohorts. Except for mental health (NA = 0.32, Japanese = 0.72, p = 0.005), the mean improvement from baseline to 2 years was similar between the NA and Japanese cohorts. The proportion of patients achieving MCID was higher in North America for function (NA = 51%, Japanese = 30%, p = 0.006), pain (NA = 80%, Japanese = 47%, p < 0.001), and subtotal (NA = 72%, Japanese = 35%, p < 0.001), while there was no significant difference for self-image (NA = 53%, Japanese = 58%, p = 0.454).CONCLUSIONSDespite similar improvements in SRS-22r domain scores from baseline to 2 years postoperatively, the proportion of patients reaching SRS-22r MCID for function, pain, and subtotal after ASD surgery was higher in the NA cohort than in the Japanese cohort. This may imply that patients in North America and Japan may value observed changes in clinical status differently.

OBJECTIVEDischarge to an inpatient rehabilitation facility or another acute-care facility not only constitutes a postoperative challenge for patients and their care team but also contributes significantly to healthcare costs. In this era of changing dynamics of healthcare payment models in which cost overruns are being increasingly shifted to surgeons and hospitals, it is important to better understand outcomes such as discharge disposition. In the current article, the authors sought to develop a predictive model for factors associated with nonroutine discharge after surgery for grade I spondylolisthesis.METHODSThe authors queried the Quality Outcomes Database for patients with grade I lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis who underwent a surgical intervention between July 2014 and June 2016. Only those patients enrolled in a multisite study investigating the impact of fusion on clinical and patient-reported outcomes among patients with grade I spondylolisthesis were evaluated. Nonroutine discharge was defined as those who were discharged to a postacute or nonacute-care setting in the same hospital or transferred to another acute-care facility.RESULTSOf the 608 patients eligible for inclusion, 9.4% (n = 57) had a nonroutine discharge (8.7%, n = 53 discharged to inpatient postacute or nonacute care in the same hospital and 0.7%, n = 4 transferred to another acute-care facility). Compared to patients who were discharged to home, patients who had a nonroutine discharge were more likely to have diabetes (26.3%, n = 15 vs 15.7%, n = 86, p = 0.039); impaired ambulation (26.3%, n = 15 vs 10.2%, n = 56, p < 0.001); higher Oswestry Disability Index at baseline (51 [IQR 42–62.12] vs 46 [IQR 34.4–58], p = 0.014); lower EuroQol-5D scores (0.437 [IQR 0.308–0.708] vs 0.597 [IQR 0.358–0.708], p = 0.010); higher American Society of Anesthesiologists score (3 or 4: 63.2%, n = 36 vs 36.7%, n = 201, p = 0.002); and longer length of stay (4 days [IQR 3–5] vs 2 days [IQR 1–3], p < 0.001); and were more likely to suffer a complication (14%, n = 8 vs 5.6%, n = 31, p = 0.014). On multivariable logistic regression, factors found to be independently associated with higher odds of nonroutine discharge included older age (interquartile OR 9.14, 95% CI 3.79–22.1, p < 0.001), higher body mass index (interquartile OR 2.04, 95% CI 1.31–3.25, p < 0.001), presence of depression (OR 4.28, 95% CI 1.96–9.35, p < 0.001), fusion surgery compared with decompression alone (OR 1.3, 95% CI 1.1–1.6, p < 0.001), and any complication (OR 3.9, 95% CI 1.4–10.9, p < 0.001).CONCLUSIONSIn this multisite study of a defined cohort of patients undergoing surgery for grade I spondylolisthesis, factors associated with higher odds of nonroutine discharge included older age, higher body mass index, presence of depression, and occurrence of any complication.

OBJECTIVEThe midline transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIDLIF) using cortical screw fixation is a novel, minimally invasive procedure that may offer enhanced recovery over traditional open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Little information is available regarding the comparative cost-effectiveness of the MIDLIF over conventional TLIF. The purpose of this study was to compare cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive MIDLIF with open TLIF.METHODSFrom a prospective, multisurgeon, surgical database, a consecutive series of patients undergoing 1- or 2-level MIDLIF for degenerative lumbar conditions was identified and propensity matched to patients undergoing TLIF based on age, sex, smoking status, BMI, diagnosis, American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Classification System (ASA) class, and levels fused. Direct costs at 1 year were collected, including costs associated with the index surgical visit as well as costs associated with readmission. Improvement in health-related quality of life was measured using EQ-5D and SF-6D.RESULTSOf 214 and 181 patients undergoing MIDLIF and TLIF, respectively, 33 cases in each cohort were successfully propensity matched. Consistent with propensity matching, there was no difference in age, sex, BMI, diagnosis, ASA class, smoking status, or levels fused. Spondylolisthesis was the most common indication for surgery in both cohorts. Variable direct costs at 1 year were $2493 lower in the MIDLIF group than in the open TLIF group (mean $15,867 vs $17,612, p = 0.073). There was no difference in implant (p = 0.193) or biologics (p = 0.145) cost, but blood utilization (p = 0.015), operating room supplies (p < 0.001), hospital room and board (p < 0.001), pharmacy (p = 0.010), laboratory (p = 0.004), and physical therapy (p = 0.009) costs were all significantly lower in the MIDLIF group. Additionally, the mean length of stay was decreased for MIDLIF as well (3.21 vs 4.02 days, p = 0.05). The EQ-5D gain at 1 year was 0.156 for MIDLIF and 0.141 for open TLIF (p = 0.821). The SF-6D gain at 1 year was 0.071 for MIDLIF and 0.057 for open TLIF (p = 0.551).CONCLUSIONSCompared with patients undergoing traditional open TLIF, those undergoing MIDLIF have similar 1-year gains in health-related quality of life, with total direct costs that are $2493 lower. Although the findings were not statistically significant, minimally invasive MIDLIF showed improved cost-effectiveness at 1 year compared with open TLIF.

OBJECTIVEFull-length (36-inch) standing spine radiographs are commonly used by spine surgeons to evaluate patients with lumbar degenerative scoliosis (LDS). Despite this practice, the impact of these images on preoperative decision making and the rate of revision surgery has not been analyzed. The purpose of this study is to determine if preoperative full-length standing spine radiographs improve surgical decision making by decreasing the rate of revision surgery in patients with LDS.METHODSFrom the Health Care Service Corporation administrative claims database, the authors identified patients 50–80 years of age with LDS who had undergone surgery including posterior lumbar decompression and fusion over 2–6 levels and with at least 5 years of continuous coverage after the index surgery. Patients were stratified into the following groups, according to the preoperative imaging studies performed within 6 months before their index surgery: lumbar spine MRI studies only, lumbar spine MRI studies and standard lumbar spine radiographs, CT myelograms, and full-length standing spine radiographs. Survival analysis was performed with the occurrence of a revision within 5 years of the index surgery as the outcome of interest.RESULTSA total of 411 patients were included in the study after applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Revision surgery within 5 years after the index procedure was most frequent in the patients with preoperative MRI only (41.8%), followed by the patients with a CT myelogram (30.4%) and those with MRI and standard radiographs (24.8%). The lowest revision rate was seen among those with long-cassette standing radiographs (11.1%). Patients whose preoperative evaluation included full-length standing radiographs (OR 0.353, p = 0.034) and MRI studies plus radiographs (OR 0.650, p = 0.022) were less likely to require revision surgery at 5 years after the index procedure.CONCLUSIONSAn assessment of standing alignment using full-length (36-inch) standing radiographs may be beneficial in reducing the risk of revision surgery in patients with lumbar scoliosis. This observation was not limited to patients with large curves or substantial deformity.

OBJECTIVEPatient-reported outcomes (PROs) such as the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) are widely used to evaluate treatment outcomes following spine surgery for degenerative conditions. The goal of this study was to use the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCMI) as a measure of general health status, for comparison with standard PROs.METHODSThe authors examined serial CCMI scores, complications, and PROs in 371 patients treated surgically for degenerative lumbar spine conditions who were enrolled in the Quality and Outcomes Database from a single center. The cohort included 152 males (41%) with a mean age of 58.7 years. Patients with no, minor, or major complications were compared at baseline and at 1 year postoperatively.RESULTSMinor complications were observed in 177 patients (48%), and major complications in 34 (9%). There were no significant differences in preoperative ODI, EQ-5D, or CCMI among the 3 groups. At 1 year, there was a significantly greater deterioration in CCMI in the major complication group (1.03) compared with the minor (0.66) and no complication groups (0.44, p < 0.006), but no significant difference in ODI or EQ-5D.CONCLUSIONSDespite equivalent improvements in PROs, patients with major complications actually had greater deterioration in their general health status, as evidenced by worse CCMI scores. Because CCMI is predictive of medical and surgical risk, patients who sustained a major complication now carry a greater likelihood of adverse outcomes with future interventions, including subsequent spine surgery. Although PRO scores are a key metric, they fail to adequately reflect the potential long-term impact of major perioperative complications.

OBJECTIVEThe aim of this paper was to use a prospective, longitudinal, multicenter outcome registry of patients undergoing surgery for lumbar degenerative disease in order to assess the incidence and factors associated with 30-day reoperation and 90-day readmission.METHODSProspectively collected data from 9853 patients from the Quality and Outcomes Database (QOD; formerly known as the N2QOD [National Neurosurgery Quality and Outcomes Database]) lumbar spine registry were retrospectively analyzed. Multivariate binomial regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with 30-day reoperation and 90-day readmission after surgery for lumbar degenerative disease. A subgroup analysis of Medicare patients stratified by age (< 65 and ≥ 65 years old) was also performed. Continuous variables were compared using unpaired t-tests, and proportions were compared using Fisher’s exact test.RESULTSThere was a 2% reoperation rate within 30 days. Multivariate analysis revealed prolonged operative time during the index case as the only independent factor associated with 30-day reoperation. Other factors such as preoperative diagnosis, body mass index (BMI), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class, diabetes, and use of spinal implants were not associated with reoperations within 30 days. Medicare patients < 65 years had a 30-day reoperation rate of 3.7%, whereas those ≥ 65 years had a 30-day reoperation rate of 2.2% (p = 0.026). Medicare beneficiaries younger than 65 years undergoing reoperation within 30 days were more likely to be women (p = 0.009), have a higher BMI (p = 0.008), and have higher rates of depression (p < 0.0001). The 90-day readmission rate was 6.3%. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that higher ASA class (OR 1.46 per class, 95% CI 1.25–1.70) and history of depression (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.04–1.54) were factors associated with 90-day readmission. Medicare beneficiaries had a higher rate of 90-day readmissions compared with those who had private insurance (OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.17–1.76). Medicare patients < 65 years of age were more likely to be readmitted within 90 days after their index surgery compared with those ≥ 65 years (10.8% vs 7.7%, p = 0.017). Medicare patients < 65 years of age had a significantly higher BMI (p = 0.001) and higher rates of depression (p < 0.0001).CONCLUSIONSIn this analysis of a large prospective, multicenter registry of patients undergoing lumbar degenerative surgery, multivariate analysis revealed that prolonged operative time was associated with 30-day reoperation. The authors found that factors associated with 90-day readmission included higher ASA class and a history of depression. The 90-day readmission rates were higher for Medicare beneficiaries than for those who had private insurance. Medicare patients < 65 years of age were more likely to undergo reoperation within 30 days and to be readmitted within 90 days after their index surgery.

OBJECTIVE The relief of leg symptoms by surgical decompression for lumbar stenosis is well supported by the literature. Less is known about the effect on back pain. Some surgeons believe that the relief of back pain should not be an expected outcome of decompression and that substantial back pain may be a contraindication to decompression only; therefore, stabilization may be recommended for patients with substantial preoperative back pain even in the absence of well-accepted indications for stabilization such as spondylolisthesis, scoliosis, or sagittal malalignment. The purpose of this study is to determine if patients with lumbar stenosis and substantial back pain—in the absence of spondylolisthesis, scoliosis, or sagittal malalignment—can obtain significant improvement after decompression without fusion or stabilization. METHODS Analysis of the National Neurosurgery Quality and Outcomes Database (N2QOD) identified 726 patients with lumbar stenosis (without spondylolisthesis or scoliosis) and a baseline back pain score ≥ 5 of 10 who underwent surgical decompression only. No patient was reported to have significant spondylolisthesis, scoliosis, or sagittal malalignment. Standard demographic and surgical variables were collected, as well as patient outcomes including back and leg pain scores, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and EuroQoL 5D (EQ-5D) at baseline and 3 and 12 months postoperatively. RESULTS The mean age of the cohort was 65.6 years, and 407 (56%) patients were male. The mean body mass index was 30.2 kg/m2, and 40% of patients had 2-level decompression, 29% had 3-level decompression, 24% had 1-level decompression, and 6% had 4-level decompression. The mean estimated blood loss was 130 ml. The mean operative time was 100.85 minutes. The vast majority of discharges (88%) were routine home discharges. At 3 and 12 months postoperatively, there were significant improvements from baseline for back pain (7.62 to 3.19 to 3.66), leg pain (7.23 to 2.85 to 3.07), EQ-5D (0.55 to 0.76 to 0.75), and ODI (49.11 to 27.20 to 26.38). CONCLUSIONS Through the 1st postoperative year, patients with lumbar stenosis—without spondylolisthesis, scoliosis, or sagittal malalignment—and clinically significant back pain improved after decompression-only surgery.

OBJECTIVE Prospective longitudinal outcomes registries are at the center of evidence-driven health care reform. Obtaining real-world outcomes data at 12 months can be costly and challenging. In the present study, the authors analyzed whether 3-month outcome measurements sufficiently represent 12-month outcomes for patients with degenerative lumbar disease undergoing surgery. METHODS Data from 3073 patients undergoing elective spine surgery for degenerative lumbar disease were entered into a prospective multicenter registry (N2QOD). Baseline, 3-month, and 12-month follow-up Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores were recorded. The absolute differences between actual 12- and 3-month ODI scores was evaluated. Additionally, the authors analyzed the absolute difference between actual 12-month ODI scores and a model-predicted 12-month ODI score (the model used patients' baseline characteristics and actual 3-month scores). The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for ODI of 12.8 points and the substantial clinical benefit (SCB) for ODI of 18.8 points were used based on the previously published values. The concordance rate of achieving MCID and SCB for ODI at 3-and 12-months was computed. RESULTS The 3-month ODI scores differed from 12-month scores by an absolute difference of 11.9 ± 10.8, and predictive modeling estimations of 12-month ODI scores differed from actual 12-month scores by a mean (± SD) of 10.7 ± 9.0 points (p = 0.001). Sixty-four percent of patients (n = 1982) achieved an MCID for ODI at 3 months in comparison with 67% of patients (n = 2088) by 12 months; 51% (n = 1731) and 61% (n = 1860) of patients achieved SCB for ODI at 3 months and 12 months, respectively. Almost 20% of patients had ODI scores that varied at least 20 points (the point span of an ODI functional category) between actual 3- and 12-month values. In the aggregate analysis of achieving MCID, 77% of patients were concordant and 23% were discordant in achieving or not achieving MCID at 3 and 12 months. The discordance rates of achieving or not achieving MCID for ODI were in the range of 19% to 27% for all diagnoses and treatments (decompression with and without fusion). The positive and negative predictive value of 3-months ODI to predict 12-month ODI was 86% and 60% for MCID and 82% and 67% for SCB. CONCLUSIONS Based on their findings, the authors conclude the following: 1) Predictive methods for functional outcome based on early patient experience (i.e., baseline and/or 3-month data) should be used to help evaluate the effectiveness of procedures in patient populations, rather than serving as a proxy for long-term individual patient experience. 2) Prospective longitudinal registries need to span at least 12 months to determine the effectiveness of spine care at the individual patient and practitioner level.

The Quality Outcomes Database (QOD), formerly known as the National Neurosurgery Quality Outcomes Database (N2QOD), was established by the NeuroPoint Alliance (NPA) in collaboration with relevant national stakeholders and experts. The overarching goal of this project was to develop a centralized, nationally coordinated effort to allow individual surgeons and practice groups to collect, measure, and analyze practice patterns and neurosurgical outcomes. Specific objectives of this registry program were as follows: “1) to establish risk-adjusted national benchmarks for both the safety and effectiveness of neurosurgical procedures, 2) to allow practice groups and hospitals to analyze their individual morbidity and clinical outcomes in real time, 3) to generate both quality and efficiency data to support claims made to public and private payers and objectively demonstrate the value of care to other stakeholders, 4) to demonstrate the comparative effectiveness of neurosurgical and spine procedures, 5) to develop sophisticated ‘risk models’ to determine which subpopulations of patients are most likely to benefit from specific surgical interventions, and 6) to facilitate essential multicenter trials and other cooperative clinical studies.” The NPA has launched several neurosurgical specialty modules in the QOD program in the 7 years since its inception including lumbar spine, cervical spine, and spinal deformity and cerebrovascular and intracranial tumor. The QOD Spine modules, which are the primary subject of this paper, have evolved into the largest North American spine registries yet created and have resulted in unprecedented cooperative activities within our specialty and among affiliated spine care practitioners. Herein, the authors discuss the experience of QOD Spine programs to date, with a brief description of their inception, some of the key achievements and milestones, as well as the recent transition of the spine modules to the American Spine Registry (ASR), a collaboration between the American Association of Neurological Surgeons and the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS).

Object The Neck Disability Index (NDI) and numeric rating scales (0 to 10) for neck pain and arm pain are widely used cervical spine disease–specific measures. Recent studies have shown that there is a strong relationship between the SF-6D and the NDI such that using a simple linear regression allows for the estimation of an SF-6D value from the NDI alone. Due to ease of administration and scoring, the EQ-5D is increasingly being used as a measure of utility in the clinical setting. The purpose of this study is to determine if the EQ-5D values can be estimated from commonly available cervical spine disease–specific health-related quality of life measures, much like the SF-6D. Methods The EQ-5D, NDI, neck pain score, and arm pain score were prospectively collected in 3732 patients who presented to the authors' clinic with degenerative cervical spine disorders. Correlation coefficients for paired observations from multiple time points between the NDI, neck pain and arm pain scores, and EQ-5D were determined. Regression models were built to estimate the EQ-5D values from the NDI, neck pain, and arm pain scores. Results The mean age of the 3732 patients was 53.3 ± 12.2 years, and 43% were male. Correlations between the EQ-5D and the NDI, neck pain score, and arm pain score were statistically significant (p < 0.0001), with correlation coefficients of −0.77, −0.62, and −0.50, respectively. The regression equation 0.98947 + (−0.00705 × NDI) + (−0.00875 × arm pain score) + (−0.00877 × neck pain score) to predict EQ-5D had an R-square of 0.62 and a root mean square error (RMSE) of 0.146. The model using NDI alone had an R-square of 0.59 and a RMSE of 0.150. The model using the individual NDI items had an R-square of 0.46 and an RMSE of 0.172. The correlation coefficient between the observed and estimated EQ-5D scores was 0.79. There was no statistically significant difference between the actual EQ-5D score (0.603 ± 0.235) and the estimated EQ-5D score (0.603 ± 0.185) using the NDI, neck pain score, and arm pain score regression model. However, rounding off the coefficients to fewer than 5 decimal places produced less accurate results. Conclusions The regression model estimating the EQ-5D from the NDI, neck pain score, and arm pain score accounted for 60% of the variability of the EQ-5D with a relatively large RMSE. This regression model may not be sufficient to accurately or reliably estimate actual EQ-5D values.

OBJECTIVESince the enactment of the Affordable Care Act in 2010, providers and hospitals have increasingly prioritized patient-centered outcomes such as patient satisfaction in an effort to adapt the “value”-based healthcare model. In the current study, the authors queried a prospectively maintained multiinstitutional spine registry to construct a predictive model for long-term patient satisfaction among patients undergoing surgery for Meyerding grade I lumbar spondylolisthesis.METHODSThe authors queried the Quality Outcomes Database for patients undergoing surgery for grade I lumbar spondylolisthesis between July 1, 2014, and June 30, 2016. The primary outcome of interest for the current study was patient satisfaction as measured by the North American Spine Surgery patient satisfaction index, which is measured on a scale of 1–4, with 1 indicating most satisfied and 4 indicating least satisfied. In order to identify predictors of higher satisfaction, the authors fitted a multivariable proportional odds logistic regression model for ≥ 2 years of patient satisfaction after adjusting for an array of clinical and patient-specific factors. The absolute importance of each covariate in the model was computed using an importance metric defined as Wald chi-square penalized by the predictor degrees of freedom.RESULTSA total of 502 patients, out of a cohort of 608 patients (82.5%) with grade I lumbar spondylolisthesis, undergoing either 1- or 2-level decompression (22.5%, n = 113) or 1-level decompression and fusion (77.5%, n = 389), met the inclusion criteria; of these, 82.1% (n = 412) were satisfied after 2 years. On univariate analysis, satisfied patients were more likely to be employed and working (41.7%, n = 172, vs 24.4%, n = 22; overall p = 0.001), more likely to present with predominant leg pain (23.1%, n = 95, vs 11.1%, n = 10; overall p = 0.02) but more likely to present with lower Numeric Rating Scale score for leg pain (median and IQR score: 7 [5–9] vs 8 [6–9]; p = 0.05). Multivariable proportional odds logistic regression revealed that older age (OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.09–2.76; p = 0.009), preoperative active employment (OR 2.06, 95% CI 1.27–3.67; p = 0.015), and fusion surgery (OR 2.3, 95% CI 1.30–4.06; p = 0.002) were the most important predictors of achieving satisfaction with surgical outcome.CONCLUSIONSCurrent findings from a large multiinstitutional study indicate that most patients undergoing surgery for grade I lumbar spondylolisthesis achieved long-term satisfaction. Moreover, the authors found that older age, preoperative active employment, and fusion surgery are associated with higher odds of achieving satisfaction.

Object Previous studies have reported on the minimum clinically important difference (MCID), a threshold of improvement that is clinically relevant for lumbar degenerative disorders. Recent studies have shown that pre- and postoperative health-related quality of life (HRQOL) measures vary among patients with different diagnostic etiologies. There is also concern that a patient's previous care experience may affect his or her perception of clinical improvement. This study determined if MCID values for the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36), and back and leg pain are different between patients undergoing primary or revision lumbar fusion. Methods Prospectively collected preoperative and 1-year postoperative patient-reported HRQOLs, including the ODI, SF-36 physical component summary (PCS), and numeric rating scales (0–10) for back and leg pain, in patients undergoing lumbar spine fusion were analyzed. Patients were grouped into either the primary surgery or revision group. As the most widely accepted MCID values were calculated from the minimum detectable change, this method was used to determine the MCID. Results A total of 722 patients underwent primary procedures and 333 patients underwent revisions. There was no statistically significant difference in demographics between the groups. Each group had a statistically significant improvement at 1 year postoperatively compared with baseline. The minimum detectable change–derived MCID values for the primary group were 1.16 for back pain, 1.36 for leg pain, 12.40 for ODI, and 5.21 for SF-36 PCS. The MCID values for the revision group were 1.21 for back pain, 1.28 for leg pain, 11.79 for ODI, and 4.90 for SF-36 PCS. These values are very similar to those previously reported in the literature. Conclusions The MCID values were similar for the revision and primary lumbar fusion groups, even when subgroup analysis was done for different diagnostic etiologies, simplifying interpretation of clinical improvement. The results of this study further validate the use of patient-reported HRQOLs to measure clinical effectiveness, as a patient's previous experience with care does not seem to substantially alter an individual's perception of clinical improvement.

Object Clinical studies use both disease-specific and generic health outcomes measures. Disease-specific measures focus on health domains most relevant to the clinical population, while generic measures assess overall health-related quality of life. There is little information about which domains of the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) are most important in determining improvement in overall health-related quality of life, as measured by the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), after lumbar spinal fusion. The objective of the study is to determine which clinical elements assessed by the ODI most influence improvement of overall health-related quality of life. Methods A single tertiary spine center database was used to identify patients undergoing lumbar fusion for standard degenerative indications. Patients with complete preoperative and 2-year outcomes measures were included. Pearson correlation was used to assess the relationship between improvement in each item of the ODI with improvement in the SF-36 physical component summary (PCS) score, as well as achievement of the SF-36 PCS minimum clinically important difference (MCID). Multivariate regression modeling was used to examine which items of the ODI best predicted achievement for the SF-36 PCS MCID. The effect size and standardized response mean were calculated for each of the items of the ODI. Results A total of 1104 patients met inclusion criteria (674 female and 430 male patients). The mean age at surgery was 57 years. All items of the ODI showed significant correlations with the change in SF-36 PCS score and achievement of MCID for the SF-36 PCS, but only pain intensity, walking, and social life had r values > 0.4 reflecting moderate correlation. These 3 variables were also the dimensions that were independent predictors of the SF-36 PCS, and they were the only dimensions that had effect sizes and standardized response means that were moderate to large. Conclusions Of the health dimensions measured by the ODI, pain intensity, walking, and social life best predicted improvement in overall health-related quality of life, as measured using the SF-36 PCS.

Object This retrospective analysis of Medicare administrative data was performed to evaluate the risk of infection following instrumented lumbar fusion over a 10-year follow-up period in the Medicare population. Although infection can be a devastating complication, due to its rarity it is difficult to characterize infection risk except in large patient populations. Methods Using ICD-9-CM and CPT4 procedure codes, the Medicare 5% analytical research files for inpatient, outpatient, and physician carrier claims were checked to identify patients who were treated between 1997 and 2009 with lumbar spine fusion in which cages or posterior instrumentation were used. Patients younger than 65 years old were excluded. Patients were followed continuously by using the matching denominator file until they withdrew from Medicare or died. The authors identified 15,069 patients with primary fusion procedures and 605 with revision of instrumented lumbar fusion. Infections were identified by the related ICD-9 codes (998.59 or 996.67) after fusion. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Cox regression were performed to determine adjusted infection risk for each type of spine procedure (primary vs revision) and surgical approach (anterior, posterior, combined anteroposterior), accounting for patient (for example, age, sex, comorbidities/Charlson Comorbidity Index [CCI], and state buy-in) and hospital (census region) characteristics. Results At 10 years, the overall infection incidence, including superficial and deep infections, was 8.5% in primary procedures and 12.2% in revisions. Among the factors considered, infection risk within 10 years was most influenced by comorbidities: for a CCI of 5 versus 0, the adjusted hazard ratio (AHR) was 2.48 (95% CI 1.93–3.19, p < 0.001); for ≥ 9 versus 2–3 fused vertebrae, the AHR was 2.39 (95% CI 1.20–4.76, p < 0.001); for revision versus primary fusion procedures, the AHR was 1.66 (95% CI 1.28–2.15, p < 0.001). Other significant predictors of 10-year infection risk included diagnosis of obesity (p < 0.001); state buy-in—a proxy for socioeconomic status (p = 0.02); age (p = 0.003); surgical approach (p = 0.03); census region (p = 0.02); and the year of the index procedure (p = 0.03). Conclusions Patient comorbidities were the greatest predictor of infection risk for the Medicare population. The high incidence of infection following instrumented fusion warrants increased focus on infection risk mitigation, especially for patients with comorbid conditions.

Object Currently, few studies regarding morbidity and mortality associated with operative treatment of spinal disorders in children are available to guide the surgeon. This study provides more detailed morbidity and mortality data with an analysis of 23,918 pediatric cases reported in the multicenter, multisurgeon Scoliosis Research Society morbidity and mortality database. Methods The Scoliosis Research Society morbidity and mortality database was queried for the years from 2004 to 2007. The inclusion criterion was age 18 years or younger. Cases were categorized by operation type and diagnosis. Details on the surgical approach, use of neurophysiological monitoring, and type of instrumentation were recorded. Major perioperative complications and deaths were evaluated. Statistical analysis was performed with chi-square testing, with a p value < 0.05 considered significant. Results A total of 23,918 patients were included. The mean age was 13 ± 3.6 years (± SD). Spinal pathology included the following: scoliosis (in 19,642 patients), kyphosis (in 1455), spondylolisthesis (in 748), trauma (in 478), and other (in 1595 patients). The overall complication rate was 8.5%. Major complications included wound infections (2.7%), new neurological deficits (1.4%), implant-related complications (1.6%), and hematomas (0.4%). The most common medical complications were respiratory related (0.9%). Morbidity rates differed based on pathology, with patients undergoing treatment for kyphosis and spondylolisthesis having higher overall rates of morbidity (14.7% and 9.6%, respectively). Patients undergoing revision procedures (2034) or corrective osteotomies (2787) were more likely to suffer a complication or new neurological deficit. The majority of these deficits improved at least partially. Thirty-one deaths were reported for an overall rate of 1.3 per 1000. Respiratory complications were the most common cause of mortality (13 cases). Twenty-six of the deaths occurred in children undergoing scoliosis correction. Conclusions Spinal surgery in children is associated with a range of complications depending on the type of operation. Mortality rates for all indications and operations were low. Patients undergoing more aggressive corrective procedures for deformity are more likely to suffer complications and new neurological deficits.

Object. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the surgical treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis in patients older than 75 years of age. Methods. The authors reviewed the records of 65 patients with lumbar spinal stenosis who were at least 75 years of age at the time of surgery, which was performed between November 1990 and May 1996. The 65 patients (43 women, 22 men; average age 78 years) underwent a total of 71 operations (one patient underwent three, and four patients underwent two). Fifteen patients (21%) underwent isolated lumbar decompression, and 56 patients (79%) underwent decompression in conjunction with posterior spinal fusion. There was an average of 1.7 levels decompressed per isolated lumbar decompression and 2.6 levels per decompression and fusion procedure. Seven patients (10%) experienced one or more serious postoperative complication, which included wound infection, septicemia, small bowel obstruction, stroke, myocardial infarction, gastrointestinal bleeding, and pulmonary embolus. In addition there was one intraoperative complication (hypotension [1%]) that required modification of the planned surgical procedure. No deaths were documented in the perioperative period. Conclusions. With appropriate preoperative selection and evaluation, careful intraoperative monitoring, and attentive perioperative care, the surgical treatment of elderly patients with lumbar spinal stenosis can effect significant improvement with acceptable levels of morbidity and mortality.