Search

Study Design: Retrospective cohort study. Objective: To (1) define utilization trends for navigated instrumented posterior lumbar fusion (PLF), (2) compare reasons and rates of revision at 30-day, 60-day, 90-day, and 1-year follow-up, and (3) compare 90-day perioperative complications between navigated versus conventional instrumented PLF. Methods: Patients who underwent navigated or conventional instrumented PLF were identified from the Humana insurance database using the PearlDiver Patient Records between 2007-2017. Usage of navigation was characterized. Patient demographics and operative characteristics (number of levels fused, interbody usage) were compared between the 2 treatment groups. Propensity score matching was done and comparisons were made for revision rates at different follow-up periods (categorized by reasons) and other 90-day perioperative complications. Results: This study included 1,648 navigated and 23 429 conventional instrumented PLF. Navigated cases increased over the years studied to approximately 10% in 2017. Statistical analysis after propensity score matching revealed significantly lower rates of hardware-related revision at 90-day follow-up in the navigated cohort (0.49% versus 1.15%, P = .033). At 1-year follow-up, the navigated cohort continued to have significantly lower rates of hardware-related revision (1.70% versus 2.73%, P = .044) as well as all cause revision (2.67% versus 4.00%, P = .032). There were no statistical differences between the 2 cohorts in any of the 90-day perioperative complications studied, such as cellulitis and blood transfusion ( P > .05 for all). Conclusions: These findings suggest that navigation is associated with reductions in hardware-related revisions after instrumented PLF. However, these results should be interpreted cautiously in the setting of potential confounding by other unmeasured variables.

The published article contained four sentences with incorrect reference citations. Here, those sentences and the reference list are corrected.

Study Design: Retrospective cohort study. Objective: The objective of this study is to determine how often patients with degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) and initially treated with cervical steroid injections (CSI) and to determine whether these injections provide any benefit in delaying ultimate surgical treatment. Methods: All patients with a new diagnosis of DCM, without previous cervical spine surgery or steroid injections, were identified in PearlDiver, a large insurance database. Steroid injection and surgery timing was identified using Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes. Multivariate logistic regression identified associations with surgical treatment. Results: A total of 686 patients with DCM were identified. Pre-surgical cervical spine steroid injections were utilized in 244 patients (35.6%). All patients underwent eventual surgical treatment. Median time from initial DCM diagnosis to surgery was 75.5 days (mean 351.6 days; standard deviation 544.9 days). Cervical steroid injections were associated with higher odds of surgery within 1 year (compared to patients without injections, OR = 1.44, P < .001) and at each examined time point through 5 years (OR = 2.01, P < .001). In multivariate analysis comparing injection types, none of the 3 injection types were associated with decreased odds of surgery within 1 month of diagnosis. Conclusions: While cervical steroid injections continue to be commonly performed in patients with DCM, there is an overall increased odds of surgery after any type of cervical injection. Therefore injections should not be used to prevent surgical management of DCM.

Study design Survey study and retrospective review of prospective data. Objectives To contrast surgeons' perceptions and reported national data regarding the rates of postoperative adverse events following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and to assess the accuracy of surgeons in predicting the impact of patient factors on such outcomes. Methods A survey investigating perceived rates of perioperative complications and the perceived effect of patient risk factors on the occurrence of complications following ACDF was distributed to spine surgeons at the Cervical Spine Research Society (CSRS) 2015 Annual Meeting. The equivalent reported rates of adverse events and impacts of patient risk factors on such complications were assessed in patients undergoing elective ACDF from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP). Results There were 110 completed surveys from attending physicians at CSRS (response rate = 44%). There were 18 019 patients who met inclusion criteria in NSQIP years 2011 to 2014. The rates of 11 out of 17 (65%) postoperative adverse events were mildly overestimated by surgeons responding to the CSRS questionnaire in comparison to reported NSQIP data (overestimates ranged from 0.24% to 1.50%). The rates of 2 out of 17 (12%) postoperative adverse events were mildly underestimated by surgeons (range = 0.08% to 1.2%). The impacts of 5 out of 10 (50%) patient factors were overestimated by surgeons (range relative risk = 0.56 to 1.48). Conclusions Surgeon estimates of risk factors for and rates of adverse events following ACDF procedures were reasonably nearer to national data. Despite an overall tendency toward overestimation, surgeons' assessments are roughly appropriate for surgical planning, expectation setting, and quality improvement initiatives.