Search

BACKGROUND CONTEXT Excessive use of postoperative imaging after lumbar surgery has been documented, becoming a target for cutting costs. This must be balanced with the patient's need for information and allay their postoperative concerns. PURPOSE To determine the incidence and associated costs of patient interactions with the healthcare system, outside the standard follow up routine, in the first postoperative year. STUDY DESIGN Retrospective longitudinal cohort. PATIENT SAMPLE Consecutive series of 200 patients who underwent lumbar fusions from 2018 to 2019 from a multi-surgeon single tertiary spine center. OUTCOME MEASURES All healthcare encounters: phone calls, office and emergency department visits, and additional testing METHODS A consecutive series of 200 patients who underwent lumbar fusions from 2018 to 2019 were identified. All non-routine healthcare encounters: phone calls, office and emergency department visits, and additional testing were collected. Direct costs for all healthcare services were determined using the Medicare Allowable rates. Indirect costs were determined using local, median income, length of office visits, and distance from the clinic to the patient's home. RESULTS Of 200 patients, 14 with thoracic fusion were excluded. The mean age of the 186 included patients was 58.26 years and 85 (46%) were male. Forty-seven percent (87/186) had only routine postoperative visits and 24 had revision surgery. Seventy-five patients made a total of 102 phone calls, 55 office visits, leading to 38 diagnostic studies none of which led to an additional intervention. Using Medicare Allowable rates, the mean direct cost was $776 per patient and the using a median income of $16/h the mean indirect cost was $124 per patient. There were no differences in the baseline characteristics among the patients who only had routine post-op encounters, had non-routine encounters or had a repeat surgery. CONCLUSIONS Forty percent of the patients undergoing lumbar surgery had a healthcare encounter outside their routine follow up that did not result in additional intervention after their index operation. These potentially unnecessary encounters create additional cost and inconvenience to both the patient and healthcare system. Providing patient reassurance is important and providers should identify ways to reduce associated costs through patient education, virtual visits, or new technologies to monitor patient's postoperative progress.

STUDY DESIGN Retrospective single center propensity-matched observational cohort study that included patients who underwent 1- to 3-level lumbar fusion surgery for degenerative conditions. OBJECTIVE To compare 90-day complication rates between robotic-assisted and non-robotic-assisted lumbar spinal fusions in propensity-matched cohorts. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA A recent administrative database (PearlDiver) study reported increased 30-day complications with the utilization of robotic-assisted enabling technology. METHODS Of 146 robotic-assisted cases that met inclusion criteria, 114 were successfully propensity matched to 114 patients from 214 cases who had 1 to 3 level lumbar fusion without robotic assistance based on age, sex, body mass index, smoking status, American Society of Anesthesiologist grade, number of surgical levels, primary versus revision, and surgical approach (posterior-only or anterior-posterior). We excluded tumor, trauma, infection, or deformity cases. Outcomes included surgical and medical (major/minor) complications at intraoperative, immediately postoperative, 30- and 90-day postoperative intervals, including reoperations, and readmissions within 90 days. RESULTS All cause intraoperative complication rates were similar between non-robotic-assisted (5.3%) and robotic-assisted groups (10.5%, P = 0.366). Immediate postoperative medical complication rate was also similar between non-robotic-assisted (6.1%) and robotic-assisted groups (1.8%, P = 0.089). Thirty-day complication rates, 90-day complication rates, reoperation rates, and readmission rates showed no difference between non-robotic-assisted and robotic-assisted groups. There was no difference between return to OR for infection between the cohorts (non-robotic-assisted: 6 [5%] vs. robotic-assisted: 1 [0.8%], P = 0.119). There was however improved length of stay (LOS) in the robotic-assisted group compared with non-robotic-assisted group (2.5 vs. 3.17 days, P = 0.018). CONCLUSION In propensity-matched cohorts, patients undergoing 1- to 3-level robotic-assisted posterior lumbar fusion for degenerative conditions did not have increased 90-day complication rate, and had a shorter length of stay compared with non-robotic-assisted patients. There findings differ from a prior administrative database study as the robotic-assisted group in the current study had 0% return to OR for malpositioned screws and 0.8% return to OR for infection.Level of Evidence: 2.

BACKGROUND: The opioid epidemic is at epic proportions currently in the United States. Exposure to opioids for surgery and subsequent postoperative pain management is a known risk factor for opioid dependence. In addition, opioids can have a negative impact on multiple aspects including clinical outcomes, length of hospital stay, and overall cost of care. Thus, the greatest effort to reduce perioperative opioid use is necessary and a multimodal pain control (MMPC) has been gaining popularity. However, its efficacy in spine surgery is not well known. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of a MMPC protocol in patients undergoing lumbar single-level anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF). METHODS: This is a retrospective comparative study. From a prospective, single-surgeon, surgical database, consecutive patients undergoing single-level ALIF with or without subsequent posterior fusion for degenerative lumbar conditions were identified before and after initiation of the MMPC protocol. The MMPC protocol consisted of a preoperative oral regimen of cyclobenzaprine (10 mg), gabapentin (600 mg), acetaminophen (1 g), and methadone (10 mg). Postoperatively they received a bilateral transverse abdominis plane block with 0.5% Ropivacaine prior to extubation. We compared in-hospital opioid consumption between the MMPC and non-MMPC cohorts as well as baseline demographic, the length of hospital stay, cost, and rate of postoperative ileus. Opioid consumption was calculated and normalized to the morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs). RESULTS: In total, 68 patients in the MMPC cohort and 39 in the non-MMPC cohort were identified. There was no difference in baseline demographics including sex, body mass index, smoking status, or preoperative opioid use between the two groups. Although there was no difference in the MMEs on the day of surgery (58.5 vs. 66.9, P=0.387), cumulative MMEs each day after surgery was significantly lower in the MMPC cohort, with final cumulative MMEs being reduced by 62% (120.2 vs. 314.8, P

BACKGROUND CONTEXT Health literacy, defined as “the degree to which individuals have the capacity to obtain, process, and understand basic health information and services needed to make appropriate health decisions,” has been demonstrated to affect access to care and appropriate healthcare utilization. PURPOSE To determine the impact of health literacy in the evaluation and management of patients with chronic low back pain. STUDY DESIGN Cross sectional. PATIENT SAMPLE Patients seen at a multisurgeon spine specialty clinic. OUTCOME MEASURES Oswestry Disability Index, EQ-5D, and Numeric Rating Scales (0–10) for back and leg pain. METHODS The Newest Vital Sign (NVS) and Health Literacy Survey, Oswestry Disability Index, EQ-5D and pain scales were administered to patients undergoing evaluation and treatment for lumbar degenerative disease in the outpatient setting. Patients were surveyed regarding their use of medication, therapy, and pain management modalities. RESULTS Of 201 patients approached for participation, 186 completed the health literacy surveys. Thirty (17%) were assessed as having limited literacy, 52 (28%) as possibly having limited literacy and 104 (56%) having adequate literacy based on their NVS scores. The cohort with low NVS scores also had low Health Literacy Survey Scores. Patients with limited literacy had worse back and leg pain scores compared with patients with possibly limited literacy and adequate literacy. Patients with adequate health literacy were more likely to use medications (80% vs. 53%, p = .017) and were more likely to see a specialist (34% vs. 17%) compared with those with limited literacy. Patients with limited health literacy were not more likely to see a chiropractor (7% vs. 7%), but reported more visits (19 vs. 8). CONCLUSIONS Patients with lower health literacy reported worse back and leg pain scores, indicating either more severe disease or a fundamental difference in their responses to standard health-related quality of life measures. This study also suggests that patients with limited health literacy may underutilize some resources and overutilize other resources. Further study is needed to clarify these patterns, and to examine their impact on health status and clinical outcomes.

Study Design Prospective observational cohort. Objectives To examine the cost-effectiveness of IntraOperative ElectroMyeloGraphy (IO-EMG) by evaluating how often an abnormal IO-EMG signal changed the surgeon’s surgical plan, or replaced a pedicle screw either intra-operatively or as a second unplanned surgery. Methods Patients undergoing instrumented posterolateral lumbar fusion were monitored with intraoperative triggered EMG’s. Pedicle screws were placed freehand from L1 to S1 by attending physicians and fellows. Concern for pedicle breach was a screw stimulationResults There were 145 cases with a total of 725 pedicle screws placed. Mean age was 57.8 ± 14.2 yrs, OR time was 238 ± 95 minutes, EBL was 426.8 ± 354.3cc. Mean number of surgical levels fused was 2.7 ± 1.1. 686 (95%) screws stimulated at >10 mA and 39 (5%) screws stimulated at Conclusions Only 1% of the 725 lumbar pedicle screws placed in 8 of 145 cases required repositioning. Due to the infrequency of pedicle wall breaches and the cost of ION, the utility of this modality in straightforward lumbar fusions should be critically evaluated.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT Surgical decision-making for cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) relies on evaluation of symptoms and physical examination. The Romberg test is a clinical exam used to identify balance issues with CSM. However, the Romberg test has a subjective interpretation and has a binary (positive or negative) result. While previous studies showed that force plate pressure readings provide quantitative measurements that objectively identify poor postural control in patients with CSM, the study compared an older CSM patient cohort with a significantly younger normal cohort, failing to account for regular aging changes. PURPOSE This study aims to compare force plate pressure readings during a standard Romberg test in patients with CSM to age-matched normal healthy volunteers. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING Longitudinal observational comparative cohort from a single multisurgeon spine center. PATIENT SAMPLE Patients who were clinically diagnosed with CSM (mean age 54.8 years, N=27) were compared to age-matched healthy volunteers (mean age 54.4 years, N=27) without a clinical history of cervical pathology. OUTCOME MEASURES Quantitative Romberg Force Plate Measurements. METHODS Patients with CSM requiring surgery and healthy normal volunteers were asked to perform the Romberg test while on a force plate measuring the center of pressure (COP): standing up straight with arms extended for 30 seconds with eyes open, followed by 30 seconds with eyes closed. The change for sway area, sway frequency and sway speed with eyes closed and eyes open were calculated and compared between patients with CSM and healthy volunteers. RESULTS Twenty-seven of 48 CSM patients were age-matched to 27 healthy volunteers. There was a larger change in Romberg measurements with eyes open vs eyes closed in CSM patients compared to normal volunteers for maximum lateral movement (12.1mm2 vs 4.1mm2, p CONCLUSIONS Poor standing balance can be quantified in patients with CSM. Quantifying standing balance in patients with CSM shows significantly worse objective measures than age-matched healthy volunteers. The Romberg test on a force plate may help diagnose and evaluate patients with CSM, guide patient management, potentially grade the severity of spinal pathology, allow more timely surgical intervention, and improve surgical outcomes. Further studies are needed to determine its utility in monitoring disease progression and measure treatment effectiveness. FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs.

Background With the current opioid crisis, as many as 38% of patients are still on opioids one year after elective spine surgery. Identifying drivers of in-hospital opioid consumption may decrease subsequent opioid dependence. We aimed to identify the drivers of in-hospital opioid consumption in patients undergoing 1-2-level instrumented lumbar fusions. Methods This is a retrospective cohort study. Electronic medical record analysts identified consecutive patients undergoing 1-2 level instrumented lumbar fusions for degenerative lumbar conditions from 2016 to 2018 from a single-center hospital administrative database. Oral, intravenous, and transdermal opioid dose administrations were converted to morphine milligram equivalents (MME). Linear regression analysis was used to determine associations between postoperative day (POD) 4 cumulative in-hospital MMEs and the patients' baseline characteristics including body mass index (BMI), race, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, smoking status, marital status, insurance type, zip code, number of fused levels, approach and preoperative opioid use. Results A total of 1,502 patients were included. The mean cumulative MMEs at POD 4 was 251.5. Linear regression analysis yielded four drivers including younger age, preoperative opioid use, current smokers and more levels fused. There were no associations with surgical approach, zip code, ASA grade, marital status, BMI, race or insurance type. Conclusions Use of preoperative opioids and smoking are modifiable risk factors for higher in-hospital opioid consumption and can be targets for intervention prior to surgery in order to decrease in-hospital opioid use.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT The recent opioid crisis in the US highlights opioid related side-effects and the dire need to reduce opioid exposure with alternative approaches. Prior studies reported that as many as 25% of opioid naive patients undergoing lumbar fusion surgery are still consuming opioids at 2 years postoperative. Currently, opioids are a primary component of anesthesia during spinal surgery. We developed an opioid sparing anesthesia (OSA) protocol for lumbar spinal fusion surgery to mitigate opioid exposure. PURPOSE To compare surgical, peri- and postoperative process measures and in-hospital opioid consumption in patients receiving OSA vs traditional anesthesia. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING Retrospective, single center propensity-matched observational cohort study. PATIENT SAMPLE Patients who underwent 1-4 level lumbar fusion for degenerative conditions. OUTCOME MEASURES Daily and total opioid consumption in morphine milligram equivalents (MME). Methods Patients undergoing Results Of 143 OSA patients meeting inclusion criteria, 134 OSA patients were successfully propensity matched to 134 non-OSA patients. Consistent with propensity matching, there was no difference in baseline demographic parameters between cohorts. Patients undergoing OSA had reduced EBL (197mL vs 324mL, p=0.000) and OR time (153min vs 193min, p=0.000) compared to non-OSA. Emergence time (9.9min vs 11.6min, p=0.151) and PACU time (90min vs 88min, p=0.688) was similar between cohorts. There was no difference in LOS (3.3day vs 3.5 days, p=0.599). Daily opioid consumption was reduced from POD 1 (114MME vs 139MME, p=0.002) and maintained each day with decreased total consumption (195MME vs 272MME, p=0.002). Pain score on transfer out of PACU was decreased for OSA patients as well (4.8 vs 6.0, p=0.000). Conclusions In a matched comparison of OSA vs traditional anesthesia for 1-4 lumbar spinal fusions in degenerative conditions we found a reduction in EBL, OR Time, PACU pain scores, and daily/total opioid in hospital consumption. The findings of this pilot study justify ongoing efforts to optimize OSA and undertake larger prospective studies of OSA protocols. FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs.

Study Design: Longitudinal cohort. Objective: It is unclear if patients with a recurrent disc herniation benefit from a concurrent fusion compared with a repeat decompression alone. We compared outcomes of decompression alone (D0) versus decompression and fusion (DF) for recurrent disc herniation. Methods: Patients enrolled in the Quality and Outcomes Database from 3 sites with a first episode of recurrent disc herniation were identified. Demographic, surgical, and radiographic data including the presence of listhesis and extent of facet resection on computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging prior to the index surgery were collected. Patient-reported outcomes were collected preoperatively and at 3 and 12 months postoperatively. Results: Of 94 cases identified, 55 had D0 and 39 had DF. Patients were similar in age, sex distribution, smoking status, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade and surgical levels. Presence of listhesis (D0 = 7, DF = 5, P = .800) and extent of facet resection (D0 = 19%, DF = 16%, P = .309) prior to index surgery were similar between the 2 groups. Estimated blood loss (D0 = 26 cm3, DF = 329 cm3, P < .001), operating room time (D0 = 79 minutes, DF = 241 minutes, P < .001) and length of stay (D0 Conclusion: For a first episode recurrent disc herniation, surgeons can expect similar outcomes whether patients are treated with decompression alone or decompression and fusion.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT A recent administrative database (PearlDiver) study reported increased 30-day complications with the utilization of robotic-assisted (RA) enabling technology. The authors reported increased fixation-related complications (3%) and infection rates (19%) in RA surgeries. Although there is ample evidence regarding improved pedicle screw accuracy with RA surgery, the complication profile has been called into question. PURPOSE The objective of the study is to compare 90-day complication rates between RA and nonrobotic-assisted (NRA) lumbar spinal fusions in propensity-matched cohorts. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING Retrospective single center observational propensity-matched observational cohort study. PATIENT SAMPLE Patients who underwent 1- to 3-level lumbar fusion surgery for degenerative conditions. OUTCOME MEASURES Surgical and medical (major/minor) complications at intraoperative, immediately postoperative, 30- and 90-day postoperative intervals. Additionally, reoperations and readmissions within 90 days. METHODS Of 146 RA cases that met inclusion criteria, 114 were successfully propensity matched to 114 patients from 214 cases who had 1-3 level lumbar fusion without robotic assistance based on age, sex, BMI, smoking status, surgical approach (posterior-only or anterior-posterior), ASA grade, revision vs primary, number of surgical levels, and number of interbody levels. We excluded tumor, trauma, infection or deformity cases. Continuous variables were compared using unpaired t-tests and categorical variables were compared using Fisher's exact test with significance set at 0.05. RESULTS Consistent with propensity matching, there was no difference in patient demographics and baseline characteristics between groups. Neither group had intraoperative fixation-related complications or required a return to OR for malpositioned screws. All cause intraoperative complication rates were similar between NRA (5.3%) and RA groups (10.5%, p=0.366). Immediate postoperative medical complication rate was also similar between NRA (6.1%) and RA groups (1.8%, p=0.089). Thirty-day complication rates (NRA:15.8% vs RA:12.3%, p=0.446), 90-day complication rates (NRA:15.8% vs RA:14.9%, p=0.854), reoperation rates (NRA:6.1% vs RA:3.5%, p=0.354), and readmission rates (NRA:7.0% vs RA:6.1%, p=0.789) showed no difference between NRA and RA groups. There was no difference between return to OR for infection between the cohorts (NRA:6 [5%] vs RA:1 [0.8%], p=0.119). There was, however, improved length of stay (LOS) in the RA group compared to NRA group (2.5 vs 3.17 days, p=0.018). CONCLUSIONS In propensity-matched cohorts, patients undergoing 1- to 3-level level RA posterior lumbar fusion for degenerative conditions did not have increased 90-day complication rate, and had a shorter length of stay compared to NRA patients. There findings differ from a prior administrative database study as the RA group in the current study had 0% return to OR for malpositioned screws and 0.8% return to OR for infection. FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs.

Study design Comparative analysis. Objective To evaluate the safety and outcomes of moving lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) surgeries to an outpatient setting. Summary of background data LLIF has been popularized as a less invasive lumbar fusion surgery as an alternative approach to anterior lumbar interbody fusions, posterior lateral interbody fusion, and transforaminal lateral interbody fusion (TLIF). Lumbar fusions have been traditionally performed in a hospital setting because of the potential blood loss, length of surgery, and need for longer recovery. There is a movement to transition spine surgeries to outpatient settings with many benefits afforded by less invasive techniques and technologies. Methods The medical records of 70 consecutive patients with prospectively collected data were retrospectively reviewed. Two cohort groups, inpatients (40 patients) and outpatients (30 patients), were created. Patient demographics, risk factors, and body mass index (BMI) were evaluated to determine inclusion criteria for study. Result A total of 34 males and 36 females, age range (31-71) average 59.3 ± 2.3 years. Average BMI was 29.6 ± 1.1 kg/m. The most common level operated on being L3-L4 in both groups (63%). Mean preoperative inpatient Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) increased from 48.5 ± 3.0 to 55.5 ± 3.2 compared with outpatient preoperative ODI means reduced from 45.2 ± 5.1 to 39.1 ± 4.6. There was no statistically significant change in VAS scores between groups. There was however significant improvement in outpatient preoperative VAS scores from 7.3 ± 0.5 to 4.1 ± 0.5, P = 0.045. Conclusion The outcomes of the present study have shown that patients who had LLIF performed in the outpatient setting had statistically significant improvement in ODI scores compared with the inpatient setting (P = 0.013). Fusion was achieved in all patients and there was no evidence of implant failure or subsidence. Complications were transient in both settings. We conclude that outpatient LLIF improves patients' outcomes with similar safety profile as the hospital setting. Level of evidence 3.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT Recent studies suggest as much as 25% of patients undergoing spine surgery are still on opioids two years later. In response, we developed protocols to minimize opioid consumption following elective spine surgery. Our goal was to evaluate patients undergoing single-level Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusions (ALIF ± posterior fixation) on MMPC compared to patients who were not (nonMMPC). PURPOSE To determine if the combination of an oral preoperative pain cocktail with transverse abdominis plane (TAP) block (multi-modal pain control: MMPC) will reduce length of stay (LOS), ileus, and in-hospital opioid consumption. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING Retrospective chart review. PATIENT SAMPLE Consecutive patients undergoing single-level ALIF for degenerative lumbar conditions by a single-surgeon. OUTCOME MEASURES Length of stay (LOS), incidence of ileus and in-hospital opioid consumption. METHODS A retrospective review of a prospective, single-surgeon, surgical database was utilized for consistency in technique. Consecutive patients undergoing single-level ALIF for degenerative lumbar conditions were identified before and after initiation of the MMPC. The MMPC consisted of a preop oral regimen of cyclobenzaprine (10mg), gabapentin (600mg), acetaminophen (1g) and methadone (10mg). Postoperatively they received a bilateral transverse abdominis plane (TAP) block with 0.5% Ropivicaine. Our primary outcome was total, in-hospital opioid consumption (morphine milligram equivalents: MME). RESULTS There were 68 patients in the MMPC cohort and 39 in the nonMMPC cohort. There was no difference in baseline demographics such as sex, BMI, smoking, or preoperative opioid use between the two groups. The MMPC cohort was older (56.7 vs 51.1 years, p=0.026). Similar rates of ileus (4 vs 6, p=0.102), no difference in LOS (3.8 vs 4.5, p=0.246) and no difference in index hospital costs was found. Although there was no difference in day of surgery MMEs (58.5 vs 68.9, p=0.387), cumulative MMEs each day after surgery was significantly lower in the MMPC cohort, with final cumulative MMEs being reduced by 62% (120.2 vs 314.8, p CONCLUSIONS The use of a MMPC regimen in patients undergoing single-level ALIF for degenerative conditions reduced opioid consumption starting on POD 1, resulting in a cumulative reduction of 62%. Further research should strive to minimize opioid use and the downstream effects. FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (TLIF) techniques have evolved from open approaches with dissection to the lateral gutters, to navigation to improve pedicle screw placement accuracy, to robotic assistance to further minimize soft tissue dissection. It is unclear if these technologies improve process measures and minimize variability in surgical technique. PURPOSE To determine if Blood Loss, Operative Time and Length of Stay will be lower with less variability with Robotic, followed by Navigated and Open TLIF. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING Propensity matched longitudinal cohort. PATIENT SAMPLE Consecutive series of patients undergoing primary single-level TLIF. OUTCOME MEASURES Blood Loss, Operative Time and Length of Stay. METHODS A consecutive series of patients undergoing primary single-level Robotic-Assisted TLIFs (RA-TLIF, N=40) were propensity matched to patients undergoing Navigated (NavTLIF, N=51) and Open TLIF (OpTLIF, N=44) using age, sex, smoking status, BMI and ASA grade. RESULTS After propensity matching, 34 cases were included in each cohort. OR Time (184±37 vs 197±48 vs 219±50, p=0.007) was lowest and had the least variability in RA-TLIFs followed by NavTLIF and OpTLIF. Length of Stay (1.5±0.9 vs 2.5±1.2 vs 4.2±1.7, p=0.000), estimated blood loss (254±259 vs 325±288 vs 489±328, p=0.004), drain output (234±257 vs 250±137 vs 653±407, p CONCLUSIONS Operative time was lowest and had the least variability in RA-TLIFs followed by NavTLIF and OpTLIF. Length of stay, blood loss, drain output, total visible blood loss, and total volume of blood products transfused was lowest in RA-TLIFs followed by NavTLIF and OpTLIF. FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs.

Background: The technique of transpsoas lateral interbody fusion has been adopted to avoid direct anterior interbody fusion, but lateral fusions have been limited to disc spaces above L5 and are associated with neurologic injuries especially to the lumbar plexus when approaching L4–5. The authors aim to demonstrate a psoas splitting technique to decrease risk of complications associated with the standard transpsoas technique. Methods: Medical records of 84 patients with prospectively collected data reviewed. Two groups created 44 patients with standard lateral transpsoas approach (group 1) and 40 patients with psoas splitting approach (group 2). The psoas splitting approach utilizes two blades placed anteriorly and posteriorly to split the psoas fibers anteriorly while keeping the posterior blade docked in place where it enters the psoas muscle. The cephalocaudal blades sit above the psoas muscle measuring 30–40 mm shorter than the posterior docking blade. Results: Thirty-nine males and 45 females, age range 31–71 years, average 58±2 years. Average body mass index (BMI) was 28.4±1.1 kg/m 2 . Mean preoperative standard approach Oswestry disability index (ODI) increased from 48.4±3.0 to 55.2±4.0 compared to psoas splitting approach preoperative ODI means reduced from 45.1±5.0 to 34.9±6.0 (P=0.010). Group 1 mean preoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) score improved from 7.8±0.3 to 3.8±0.6 compared to group 2 mean preoperative VAS score which improved from 7.2±0.4 to 2.7±0.5 (P=0.048). Major complication rate of 20.5% was noted in standard transpsoas approach patients, including inability to walk and dermatome numbness. Conclusions: The outcomes of this study have shown that patients who had lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) with the psoas splitting approach had statistically significant improvement in ODI scores compared to the standard approach. Fusion was achieved in all patients and there was no evidence of implant failure or subsidence. In the psoas splitting group the major complication rate was only 5%.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT Posterior fixation with interbody cage placement can be accomplished via numerous techniques. In attempts to expedite recovery by limiting muscle dissection, the midline interbody fusion (MIDLIF) has been described. More recently, we have developed a robotic-assisted MIDLIF (RA-MIDLIF) technique. Introduction of new technology can potentially be expensive and burdensome. PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to compare index episode of care parameters between patients undergoing either traditional open TLIF (tTLIF), MIDLIF, or RA-MIDLIF. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING Retrospective review of a prospective, multisurgeon, surgical database. PATIENT SAMPLE Consecutive patients undergoing 1- or 2- level RA-MIDLIF, tTLIF or MIDLIF. OUTCOME MEASURES Estimated blood loss (EBL), operative tme (OR Time), length of stay (LOS), total direct hospital cost. METHODS A retrospective review of a prospective, multisurgeon, surgical database was utilized. Consecutive patients undergoing 1- or 2-level RA-MIDLIF for degenerative lumbar conditions were identified and propensity-matched based on age, sex, smoking status, BMI, ASA grade and levels fused to patients undergoing tTLIF or MIDLIF. LOS, EBL, OR Time and direct hospital cost for the index surgical admission were compared. RESULTS Of 55 RA-MIDLIF cases identified, 52 were successfully propensity-matched to patients undergoing tTLIF or MIDLIF. Consistent with propensity matching, there was no difference in age, sex, BMI, ASA grade, smoking status or levels fused. The mean direct hospital cost was similar across all cohorts. Patients undergoing RA-MIDLIF had a shorter average LOS (1.53 days) compared to either MIDLIF (2.71 days) or TLIF (3.58 days). Both MIDLIF and RA-MIDLIFs had lower EBL and less OR time compared to both tTLIF. CONCLUSIONS Despite concerns for additional cost and time while introducing navigation or robotic technology, a propensity-matched comparison of our first 52 robotic-assisted MIDLIF surgeries compared to tTLIF and MIDLIF showed promising results for reducing OR time, EBL, LOS and without increasing cost. FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT Provisions in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPAC) include alternative payment models that shift away from fee-for-service reimbursement and provide incentives to improve value. These reimbursement models could incorporate the post-discharge facility care and it is therefore important to identify drivers of additional cost, especially in the setting of unexpected non-home discharge. PURPOSE To identify factors associated with being discharged to a non-home location after an elective 1-2 level instrumented lumbar fusion that, if identified, can be useful to allow for early post-discharge planning. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING Retrospective chart review. PATIENT SAMPLE Patients undergoing 1-2 level instrumented lumbar fusions for degenerative lumbar conditions from 2016 to 2018. OUTCOME MEASURES Non-home discharge. METHODS Hospital administrative database and electronic medical record analysts identified consecutive patients undergoing 1-2 level instrumented lumbar fusions for degenerative lumbar conditions from 2016 to 2018. Discharge disposition was determined as home vs non-home (NH). A regression analysis was used to determine associations between NH discharge and an underserved zip code, ASA grade, marital status, race, insurance type, smoking status, BMI, number of levels, approach and revision surgery. RESULTS A total of 1,502 patients (601; 40% male) were included with a mean age of 57.5 years. The majority were discharged home (1,216; 81%). Of the 286 (19%) not discharged home, the majority went to a skilled nursing facility (248). Factors associated with a NH discharge were living in an underserved zip code, not being married, being on government insurance, having more levels fused, higher BMI and older age. Length of stay (5.64 vs 3.03 days, p CONCLUSIONS Patients living in an underserved zip code, not married, higher BMI, older, and having government insurance are more likely to be discharged to a non-home facility after undergoing 1-2 instrumented lumbar fusions. Identification and early intervention to place these patients even before admission may decrease the length of hospital stay and cost. FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT Our previous study showed that prescribing patterns, more than surgery invasiveness or patient factors, affect post-operative opioid consumption. Since then we have instituted a Standard Escalation Pain Protocol (SEPP): patients receive 0-60 Morphine Milligram Equivalents (MME) above their baseline pre-op MME after surgery. PURPOSE The purpose of this study is to evaluate how prescribing patterns affect immediate postoperative opioid consumption in patients undergoing 1- to 2-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion with a navigated or robotic-assisted, midline exposure (MIDLIF). STUDY DESIGN/SETTING Single surgeon consecutive series. PATIENT SAMPLE Patients with degenerative lumbar pathology who had a MIDLIF from 2017 to 2018 were identified. OUTCOME MEASURES In-hospital opioid consumption. METHODS Patients with degenerative lumbar pathology who had a MIDLIF from 2017 to 2018 were identified and divided into two cohorts: patients who had surgery before the institution of SEPP (PreSEPP) and those who had surgery after (PostSEPP). Length of stay and daily opioid consumption were extracted by EMR data analysts unaware of the purpose of the study. RESULTS The PreSEPP (N=34) and PostSEPP (N=27) patients were similar at baseline in age, sex distribution, ASA grade, BMI and smoking status. Pre-Op (2.2 vs 3.6, p=0.630) and Post-op Day-0 (POD-0, 52.5 vs 38.8, p=0.192) MME consumption was similar between the two groups. At POD-1, cumulative MME consumption was higher in the Pre-SEPP (131.7) compared to the PostSEPP group (76.0, p=0.004) and this was maintained up to discharge (54% total MME reduction). Length of stay was also longer in the PreSEPP (1.97 days) compared to the PostSEPP group (1.37 days, p=0.004). CONCLUSIONS The use of a standard escalation pain protocol decreases in-hospital opioid consumption by 54% and shortens length of stay after 1-2 level lumbar spinal fusion. Similar to our previous study, prescribing pattern is an important factor affecting post-op opioid consumption. FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT In 2016 alone, 19,413 deaths were attributed to prescription opioid overdoses. Understanding the drivers of opiate consumption in postoperative lumbar spinal fusion patients is a high priority. PURPOSE To determine if surgical invasiveness and/or preoperative opiate use influences immediate postoperative opiate consumption. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING Propensity matched longitudinal cohort. PATIENT SAMPLE Patients from a multi-surgeon, single spine specialty center with degenerative lumbar pathology who underwent an instrumented posterior lumbar decompression and interbody fusion (MIDLIF or TLIF). OUTCOME MEASURES Oswestry Disability Index, morphine equivalent doses (MED) from postoperative day (POD) #0 through POD #4. METHODS A single-center, multi-surgeon, retrospective review identified patients with degenerative lumbar pathology who underwent an instrumented posterior lumbar decompression and interbody fusion (MIDLIF or TLIF). Patients in each cohort were propensity-matched based on age, sex, smoking status, BMI, diagnosis, ASA grade and levels fused. MED POD #0 through POD #4 were calculated. Preoperative opiate prescriptions were recorded to determine baseline opioid use. RESULTS Of 214 MIDLIF and 281 TLIF patients undergoing surgery, 33 patients in each cohort were successfully propensity matched with no differences in baseline characteristics. There was no difference in immediate postoperative mean total MED between the cohorts (MIDLIF=370, TLIF=302, p=.398). Forty-three (65%) of patients were taking opiates prior to surgery. Opiate-naive patients required less narcotics (MED=248) compared to nonopiate naive patients (MED=383, p=.071) but this was not significant. Patients taking opiates preop had worse baseline ODI (56.5 vs. 47.2, p=.023) and 1-year postop ODI (46.3 vs. 30.9, p=.015). CONCLUSIONS Neither surgical invasiveness nor preoperative opiate use have an impact on immediate postop opiate consumption. This is likely secondary to non-individualized prescribing patterns. Patients taking preop narcotics have worse baseline, 1-year, and improvement in ODI following 1- and 2-level MIDLIFs or TLIFs. FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT It is unclear if patients with recurrent disc herniation (RDH) benefit from a concurrent fusion compared to a repeat decompression alone. No studies are available comparing outcomes of decompression alone (D0) versus decompression and fusion (DF) for RDH. PURPOSE The purpose of the study is to compare clinical outcomes and revisions in patients with first episode recurrent disc herniation treated with decompression only compared to decompression and concommittant fusion. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING Multicenter longitudinal observational cohort. PATIENT SAMPLE Patients enrolled in the Quality Outcomes Database (QOD) from three sites with a first episode of RDH and one- to two-level surgery. OUTCOME MEASURES Numeric rating scales (0–10) for back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), EuroQOL-5D (EQ-5D), revision surgery. METHODS Patients enrolled in QOD from three sites with a first episode of RDH and one- to two-level surgery were identified. Demographic, surgical and radiographic data including the presence of listhesis and extent of facet resection on CT or MRI prior to the index surgery were collected. Patient Reported Outcomes (PROs), including back and leg pain, ODI and EQ-5D, were collected pre-op and at 3 and 12 months post-op. RESULTS Of 94 cases identified, 55 had D0 and 39 had DF. The patients were similar in age, sex distribution, smoking status, BMI, ASA grade and surgical levels. Presence of listhesis (D0=7, DF=5, p=.800) and extent of facet fusion (D0=19%, DF=16%, p=.309) prior to index surgery were similar between the two groups. EBL (D0=26cc DF=329cc p CONCLUSIONS For a first episode recurrent disc herniation, surgeons can expect similar outcomes whether patients are treated with decompression alone or decompression and fusion. Despite similarities in baseline demographic, PRO and radiologic data, variables that lead a surgeon to choose decompression alone or decompression and fusion are unknown and can lead to selection bias. Further studies are needed to identify clear indications for fusion in patients with first episode recurrent disc herniation.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT Posterior instrumented lumbar fusions are commonly performed utilizing interbody fusions. Recently, a minimally invasive technique of midline exposure with cortical bone trajectory screw fixation has been described (MIDLIF). The goal is to limit muscle dissection, decreasing surgical morbidity and expedite recovery. PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to compare index episode of care (iEOC) cost between patients undergoing MIDLIF versus tTLIF. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING Multi-surgeon single-center spine specialty tertiary practice. PATIENT SAMPLE Consecutive patients undergoing 1- or 2-level MIDLIF or tTLIF for degenerative lumbar conditions were identified. OUTCOME MEASURES Index episode of care cost data for surgical and hospital stay parameters and included actual, direct, hospital cost. METHODS A retrospective review of a prospective, multi-surgeon, surgical database was utilized. Consecutive patients undergoing 1- or 2-level MIDLIF or tTLIF for degenerative lumbar conditions were identified. Patients in each cohort were propensity-matched based on age, sex, smoking status, BMI, diagnosis, ASA grade and levels fused. iEOC cost data was collected for surgical and hospital stay parameters and included actual, direct, hospital cost for the index surgical visit. RESULTS Of 214 and 281 patients undergoing MIDLIF or tTLIF, respectively, 105 cases in each cohort were successfully propensity-matched. Consistent with propensity matching, there was no difference in age, sex, BMI, diagnosis, ASA score, smoking status, or levels fused. Spondylolisthesis was the most common indication for surgery in both cohorts. The mean total iEOC was $706 ($16,604 vs. $17,310) lower for MIDLIF versus tTLIF. There was no difference in implant (p=.193) or biologic (p=.145) cost but blood utilization (p=.000), OR supplies (p=.000), hospital room/board (p=.000), pharmacy (p=.010), and therapy (p=.009) costs were all significantly lower in MIDLIF. Additionally, mean LOS was decreased for MIDLIF (2.97 vs. 4.02, p=.000). CONCLUSIONS Compared to traditional open tTLIF, patients undergoing MIDLIF have several cost parameters of the iEOC that are significantly lower as well as a shorter length of stay. FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs.