Search

Background: Repetitive lumbar hyperextension and rotation during athletic activity affect the structural integrity of the lumbar spine. While many sports have been associated with an increased risk of developing a pars defect, few previous studies have systematically investigated spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis in professional baseball players. Purpose: To characterize the epidemiology and treatment of symptomatic lumbar spondylolysis and isthmic spondylolisthesis in American professional baseball players. We also sought to report the return-to-play (RTP) and performance-based outcomes associated with the diagnosis of a pars defect in this elite athlete population. Study Design: Descriptive epidemiology study. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted among all Major and Minor League Baseball (MLB and MiLB, respectively) players who had low back pain and underwent lumbar spine imaging between 2011 and 2016. Players with radiological evidence of a pars defect (with or without listhesis) were included. Analyses were conducted to assess the association between player-specific characteristics and RTP time. Baseball performance metrics were also compared before and after the injury episode to determine whether there was an association between the diagnosis of a pars defect and diminished player performance. Results: During the study period of 6 MLB seasons, 272 professional baseball players had low back pain and underwent lumbar spine imaging. Overall, 75 of these athletes (27.6%) received a diagnosis of pars defect. All affected athletes except one (98.7%) successfully returned to professional baseball, with a median RTP time of 51 days. Players with spondylolisthesis returned to play faster than those with spondylolysis, MLB athletes returned faster than MiLB athletes, and position players returned faster than pitchers. Athletes with a diagnosed pars defect did not show a significant decline in performance after returning to competition after their injury episode. Conclusion: Lumbar pars defects were a common cause of low back pain in American professional baseball players. The vast majority of affected athletes were able to return to competition without demonstrating a significant decline in baseball performance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Design: A retrospective cohort study.Objective: The objective of this study is to compare the radiographic and clinical outcomes of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) with bilateral facetectomy (BF) versus unilateral facetectomy (UF).Summary Of Background Data: BF is a surgical technique utilized with the intent of creating a greater degree of segmental lordosis than UF alone. However, the clinical benefits of this technique have not been defined. We seek to determine whether a difference exists between bilateral versus UF during TLIF by utilizing both clinical and radiographic outcome measures.Methods: The electronic medical records of 57 patients who underwent single-level TLIF with either a UF (n = 28) or BF (n = 29) were reviewed. Clinical outcomes were measured through Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), Pain Disability Questionnaire (PDQ), EuroQol 5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) Health State, and Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY). Radiographic parameters including disc height and sagittal balance were measured on plain radiographs at 1 year following operation.Results: All radiographic parameters showed no significant differences between the UF and BF cohorts. Segmental lordosis increased significantly in both cohorts. However, there was no significant difference in the increase of segmental lordosis between cohorts. Overall lumbar lordosis did not increase significantly in either cohort. Perioperative complications were also similar between cohorts. PDQ and EQ-5D scores improved significantly in both cohorts at 1 year postoperatively. The BF cohort showed a significantly greater improvement in both EQ-5D (0.1 ± 0.2 vs. 0.3 ± 0.2, P = 0.01) and PHQ-9 scores (-0.8 ± 4.6 vs. 4.6 ± 5.2, P = 0.03) than the UF cohort. The PDQ score improved over the minimally clinical important difference (MCID) of 26 in only the BF cohort.Conclusion: The findings in the present study demonstrate that BF during single-level TLIF improves clinical outcomes to a greater degree than UF without any notable differences in perioperative complications or radiographic measurements.Level Of Evidence: 3. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Design: Retrospective review.Objective: The aim of this study was to examine the association between preoperative depression and patient satisfaction in the outpatient spine clinic after lumbar surgery.Summary Of Background Data: The Clinician and Group Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CG-CAHPS) survey is used to measure patient experience in the outpatient setting. CG-CAHPS scores may be used by health systems in physician incentive programs and quality improvement initiatives or by prospective patients when selecting spine surgeons. Although preoperative depression has been shown to predict poor patient-reported outcomes and less satisfaction with the inpatient experience following lumbar surgery, its impact on patient experience with spine surgeons in the outpatient setting remains unclear.Methods: Patients who underwent lumbar surgery and completed the CG-CAHPS survey at postoperative follow-up with their spine surgeon between 2009 and 2017 were included. Data were collected on patient demographics, Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ-9) scores, and Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System Global Health Physical Health (PROMIS-GPH) subscores. Patients with preoperative PHQ-9 scores ≥10 (moderate-to-severe depression) were included in the depressed cohort. The association between preoperative depression and top-box satisfaction ratings on several dimensions of the CG-CAHPS survey was examined.Results: Of the 419 patients included in this study, 72 met criteria for preoperative depression. Depressed patients were less likely to provide top-box satisfaction ratings on CG-CAHPS metrics pertaining to physician communication and overall provider rating (OPR). Even after controlling for patient-level covariates, our multivariate analysis revealed that depressed patients had lower odds of reporting top-box OPR (odds ratio [OR]: 0.19, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.06-0.63, P = 0.007), feeling that their spine surgeon provided understandable explanations (OR: 0.32, 95% CI: 0.11-0.91, P = 0.032), and feeling that their spine surgeon provided understandable responses to their questions or concerns (OR: 0.19, 95% CI: 0.06-0.63, P = 0.007).Conclusion: Preoperative depression is independently associated with lower OPR and satisfaction with spine surgeon communication in the outpatient setting after lumbar surgery.Level of Evidence: 3. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Design: Retrospective cohort study using prospectively collected data.Objective: The aim of this study was to determine the association between preoperative depression and patient experience in a cervical spine surgery population.Summary Of Background Data: The Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey is used to measure patient experience and its scores directly influence reimbursement in the United States. Although it is well-established in the literature that untreated depression is associated with worse patient-reported outcomes in cervical spine surgery, no previous studies have analyzed the association between depression and patient satisfaction for these patients.Methods: HCAHPS survey responses from patients undergoing cervical spine surgery between 2013 and 2015 were collected at a tertiary care center. HCHAPS survey responses were linked to demographic data as well as patient-reported quality of life (QOL) metrics including Patient Health Questionnaire, EuroQol 5 Dimensions index, and Visual Analog Scale for neck pain for each patient. Preoperative PHQ-9 scores of ≥10 (moderate to severe depression) was used to define preoperative depression. Uni- and multivariable analyses were performed to investigate the association of preoperative depression and top-box scores on several dimensions on the HCAHPS survey.Results: In our 145-patient cohort, depressed patients were on average younger, had higher preoperative neck pain scores, and had a lower health-related QOL. Depressed patients were less likely to report satisfaction with questions related to doctor respect (P = 0.020) and doctors listening (P = 0.030). After adjusting for covariates, multivariable logistic regression analysis revealed that patients with preoperative depression had lower odds of feeling respected by their physicians (odds ratio = 0.14, 95% confidence interval: 0.02-0.87, P = 0.035).Conclusion: In patients undergoing cervical spine surgery, preoperative depression was found to have a negative association with patient perceptions of doctor communication as measured by the HCAHPS survey. These results highlight depression as a risk factor for worse patient experience communicating with their spine surgeon.Level Of Evidence: 3. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Context: Relative value units (RVUs) are a compensation model based on the effort required to provide a procedure or service to a patient. Thus, procedures that are more complex and require greater technical skill and aftercare, such as multilevel spine surgery, should provide greater physician compensation. However, there are limited data comparing RVUs with operative time. Therefore, this study aims to compare mean (1) operative times; (2) RVUs; and (3) RVU/min between posterior segmental instrumentation of 3-6, 7-12, and ≥13 vertebral segments, and to perform annual cost difference analysis.Methods: A total of 437 patients who underwent instrumentation of 3-6 segments (Cohort 1, current procedural terminology [CPT] code: 22842), 67 patients who had instrumentation of 7-12 segments (Cohort 2, CPT code: 22843), and 16 patients who had instrumentation of ≥13 segments (Cohort 3, CPT code: 22844) were identified from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database. Mean operative times, RVUs, and RVU/min, as well as an annualized cost difference analysis, were calculated and compared using Student t test. This study received no funding from any party or entity.Results: Cohort 1 had shorter mean operative times than Cohorts 2 and 3 (217 minutes vs. 325 minutes vs. 426 minutes, p<.05). Cohort 1 had a lower mean RVU than Cohorts 2 and 3 (12.6 vs. 13.4 vs. 16.4). Cohort 1 had a greater RVU/min than Cohorts 2 and 3 (0.08 vs. 0.05, p<.05; vs. 0.08 vs. 0.05, p>.05). A $112,432.12 annualized cost difference between Cohorts 1 and 2, a $176,744.76 difference between Cohorts 1 and 3, and a $64,312.55 difference between Cohorts 2 and 3 were calculated.Conclusion: The RVU/min takes into account not just the value provided but also the operative times required for highly complex cases. The RVU/min for fewer vertebral level instrumentation being greater (0.08 vs. 0.05), as well as the $177,000 annualized cost difference, indicates that compensation is not proportional to the added time, effort, and skill for more complex cases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Context: Lumbar fusion is an effective and durable treatment for symptomatic lumbar spondylolisthesis; however, the current literature provides insufficient evidence to recommend an optimal surgical fusion strategy.Purpose: The present study aims to compare the clinical outcomes, fusion rates, blood loss, and operative times between open posterolateral lumbar fusion (PLF) alone and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) + posterolateral fusion for spondylolisthesis.Study Design: This is a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of English language studies for the treatment of spondylolisthesis with PLF versus PLF + TLIF.Patient Sample: Data were obtained from published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and retrospective cohort studies.Outcome Measures: Clinical outcomes included Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), back pain, leg pain, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) scores. Fusion rate, operative time, blood loss, and infection rate were also assessed.Methods: A literature search of three electronic databases was performed to identify investigations performed comparing PLF alone with PLF + TLIF for treatment of low-grade lumbar spondylolisthesis. The summary effect size was assessed from pooling observational studies for each of the outcome variables, with odds ratios (ORs) used for fusion and infection rate, mean difference used for improvement in ODI and leg pain as well as operative time and blood loss, and standardized mean difference used for improvement in back pain and HRQOL outcomes. Studies were weighed based on the inverse of the variance and heterogeneity. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2-an estimate of the error caused by between-study variation. Effect sizes from the meta-analysis were then compared with data from the RCTs to assess congruence in outcomes.Results: The initial literature search yielded 282 unique, English language studies. Seven were determined to meet our inclusion criteria and were included in our qualitative analysis. Five observational studies were included in our quantitative meta-analysis. The pooled fusion success rates were 84.7% (100/118) in the PLF group and 94.3% (116/123) in the TLIF group. Compared with TLIF patients, PLF patients had significantly lower odds of achieving solid arthrodesis (OR 0.33, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.13-0.82, p=.02; I2=0%). With regard to improvement in back pain, the point estimate for the effect size was -0.27 (95% CI -0.43 to -0.10, p=.002; I2=0%), in favor of the TLIF group. For ODI, the pooled estimate for the effect size was -3.73 (95% CI -7.09 to -0.38, p=.03; I2=35%), significantly in favor of the TLIF group. Operative times were significantly shorter in the PLF group, with a summary effect size of -25.55 (95% CI -43.64 to -7.45, p<.01; I2=54%). No significant difference was observed in leg pain, HRQOL improvement, blood loss, or infection rate. Our meta-analysis results were consistent with RCTs, in favor of TLIF for achieving radiographic fusion and greater improvement in ODI and back pain.Conclusions: Our results demonstrate that for patients undergoing fusion for spondylolisthesis, TLIF is superior to PLF with regard to achieving radiographic fusion. However, current data only provide weak support, if any, favoring TLIF over PLF for clinical improvement in disability and back pain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Design: A retrospective cohort study at a single institution.Objective: To determine the effect of preoperative depression on Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey scores in a lumbar fusion population.Summary Of Background Data: HCAHPS surveys are used to assess the quality of the patient experience, and directly influences reimbursement for hospital systems and spine surgeons nationwide. Untreated depression has been linked to worse functional outcomes in spine surgery. We, however, aimed to elucidate whether HCAHPS survey responses were different in depressed patients.Methods: Prospectively collected functional outcome data including Patient Health Questionnaire 9, EuroQol five dimensions, and Pain Disability Questionnaire were analyzed preoperatively. Preoperative Patient Health Questionnaire 9 scores of greater than or equal to 10 (moderate to severe depression) defined our depressed cohort of patients. HCAHPS responses were obtained for each individual, allowing for real-world analysis of outcomes in this population.Results: In our 237 patient cohort, depressed patients were younger, female; were on full disability; and had lower scores on EuroQol five dimensions and Pain Disability Questionnaire preoperatively. Approximately 73.2% of depressed patients felt doctors treated them with respect, compared to 88.8% of patients without depression (P = 0.005). Also, depressed patients felt nurses treated them with less respect (P = 0.014) and that physicians did not listen to them as carefully (P = 0.029). Multivariate regression analysis revealed that patients with preoperative depression had higher odds of patients feeling less respected by both physicians and nurses. Multivariate analysis also revealed that depression was an independent predictor of lower patient satisfaction with nursing response to their needs.Conclusion: In patients undergoing lumbar fusion, preoperative depression was shown to have negative effect on patient experience measured by the HCAHPS survey. These results suggest that depression may be a modifiable risk factor for poor hospital experience.Level Of Evidence: 3. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Context: Lumbar fusion is a common and costly procedure in the United States. Reimbursement for surgical procedures is increasingly tied to care quality and patient safety as part of value-based reimbursement programs. The incidence of adverse quality events among lumbar fusion patients is unknown using the definition of care quality (patient safety indicators [PSI]) used by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). The association between insurance status and the incidence of PSI is similarly unknown in lumbar fusion patients.Purpose: This study sought to determine the incidence of PSI in patients undergoing inpatient lumbar fusion and to quantify the association between primary payer status and PSI in this population.Study Design: A retrospective cohort study was carried out.Patient Sample: The sample comprised all adult patients aged 18 years and older who were included in the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) that underwent lumbar fusion from 1998 to 2011.Outcome Measure: The incidence of one or more PSI, a validated and widely used metric of inpatient health-care quality and patient safety, was the primary outcome variable.Methods: The NIS data were examined for all cases of inpatient lumbar fusion from 1998 to 2011. The incidence of adverse patient safety events (PSI) was determined using publicly available lists of the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification diagnosis codes. Logistic regression models were used to determine the association between primary payer status (Medicaid and self-pay relative to private insurance) and the incidence of PSI.Results: A total of 539,172 adult lumbar fusion procedures were recorded in the NIS from 1998 to 2011. Patients were excluded from the secondary analysis if "other" or "missing" was listed for primary insurance status. The national incidence of PSI was calculated to be 2,445 per 100,000 patient years of observation, or approximately 2.5%. In a secondary analysis, after adjusting for patient demographics and hospital characteristics, Medicaid and self-pay patients had significantly greater odds of experiencing one or more PSI during the inpatient episode relative to privately insured patients (odds ratio 1.16, 95% confidence interval 1.07-1.27).Conclusions: Among patients undergoing inpatient lumbar fusion, insurance status is associated with the adverse health-care quality events used to determine hospital reimbursement by the CMS. The source of this disparity must be studied to improve the quality of care delivered to vulnerable patient populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Context: Multiple studies have determined minimum clinically important difference (MCID) thresholds for EuroQOL-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) scores in lumbar fusion patients. However, a comprehensive understanding of predictors for a clinically significant improvement (CSI) postoperatively does not exist.Purpose: To determine medical, radiographic, and surgical predictors for obtaining a CSI following lumbar fusion surgery.Study Design: This is a retrospective review of patients who underwent instrumented lumbar fusion.Patient Sample: We included patients who underwent lumbar fusion for any indication between 2008 and 2013.Outcome Measures: Outcome measures included preoperative and postoperative EQ-5D Index scores.Materials and Methods: The medical records of patients who received a lumbar fusion for any indication were retrospectively reviewed to identify patient medical and surgical characteristics. A blinded reviewer assessed radiographs for each patient to examine sagittal alignment following fusion. Multivariable logistic regression was used to model the achievement of a CSI based on two commonly cited MCID values.Results: A total of 231 patients fit the inclusion criteria; 58% exceeded an MCID value for an EQ-5D score of 0.100, and 16% exceeded an MCID value of 0.390. Statistically significant independent predictors of not obtaining a CSI for an MCID threshold of 0.100 included a higher preoperative EQ-5D score (odds ratio [OR]=44.8) and L5-S1 fusion (OR=3.3). For an MCID value of 0.390, a higher preoperative EQ-5D score (OR=2,080.8) and a diagnosis of depression (OR=7.1) were predictive of not achieving a CSI, whereas spondylolisthesis (OR=4.1) was predictive of obtaining a CSI postoperatively. For both MCID values, patients who achieved a CSI had better postoperative quality of life (QOL) scores for all metrics measured, despite worse QOL scores preoperatively.Conclusions: This study is the first to use a combination of medical, surgical, and postoperative sagittal balance variables as determinants for the achievement of a CSI after lumbar fusion. The awareness of these predictors may allow for better patient selection and surgical approach to decrease the probability of acquiring a poor outcome postoperatively. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Design: Retrospective Review.Objective: The aim of this study was to determine medical, radiographic, and surgical risk factors for the development of adjacent segment disease (ASD) after lumbar fusion.Summary Of Background Data: ASD is a recognized outcome of spinal fusion that leads to increased costs and debilitating symptoms for patients. However, a comprehensive understanding of risk factors for the development of this surgical outcome does not exist.Methods: The medical records of patients who received their first lumbar fusion for any indication were retrospectively examined for preoperative medical comorbidities and medications, as well as surgical approach and perioperative complications. A blinded reviewer assessed radiographs for each patient to examine sagittal alignment after fusion. Multivariable logistic regression was used to model the risk of developing ASD on the basis of one or more predictors.Results: A total of 137 patients fit the inclusion criteria; 9% required a follow-up operation for degeneration at segments adjacent to the fusion. The ASD group had a mean follow-up of 21.1 months prior to revision surgery and an overall follow-up of 41.0 months. The average follow-up in the control group was 14.0 months. Statistically significant independent predictors of developing ASD included antidepressant use [odds ratio (OR) = 5.4], diagnosis of degenerative scoliosis (OR = 34.2), fusion of L4-S1 (OR = 56.5), having no decompressions adjacent to the fusion, and low sacral slope (OR = 0.9). No patient who developed ASD received a decompression adjacent to the fusion such that an OR could not be generated for this independent predictor.Conclusion: This study is the first to use a combination of medical, surgical, and postoperative sagittal balance as risk factors for the development of adjacent segment disease after lumbar fusion. The awareness of these risk factors may allow for better patient selection and surgical technique to decrease the probability of acquiring this adverse outcome.Level Of Evidence: 4. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Context: Patients with comorbid disease may experience suboptimal quality of life (QOL) improvement following decompression spinal surgery. Prior studies have suggested the deleterious effect of diabetes upon postoperative QOL; however, these studies have not used minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) or multivariable statistical techniques.Purpose: The purpose of this study was to assess the effect of preoperative diabetes upon postoperative change in QOL.Study Design/setting: A retrospective cohort study at a single tertiary-care center was carried out.Patient Sample: Patients who underwent lumbar decompression between 2008 and 2014 were included in the study. Inclusion necessitated a minimum follow-up of 6 months.Outcomes Measures: Postoperative changes in the EuroQol 5-Dimensions (EQ-5D), Pain Disability Questionnaire (PDQ), and Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ-9) at last follow-up were the primary outcome measures. The secondary outcome variable was postoperative change in QOL measures exceeding the MCID.Methods: Quality of life data were collected using the institutional prospectively collected database of patient-reported health status measures. Simple and multivariable logistic regressions were used to assess the impact of diabetes upon normalized change in QOL and improvement exceeding the MCID.Results: There were 212 patients who met inclusion criteria. Whereas non-diabetics experienced significant improvements in EQ-5D, PDQ, and PHQ-9 (p<.01), diabetics experienced no significant changes in any measures. More non-diabetics achieved the EQ-5D MCID compared with diabetics (55% vs. 23%, p<.01). Following multivariable regression, chronic kidney disease (CKD, β=-0.15, p=.04) and diabetes (β=-0.05, p=.04) were identified as significant independent predictors of diminished improvement in EQ-5D postoperatively. Furthermore, diabetes was also identified as a significant independent predictor of failure to achieve an EQ-5D MCID (OR 0.20, p<.01), whereas CKD trended toward predicting diminished improvement (OR<0.01, p=.09).Conclusion: The burden of comorbidities may impact the QOL benefit of decompression spine surgery. In the present study, diabetes was found to independently predict diminished improvement in QOL after lumbar decompression. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Context: Patients with multiple myeloma (MM) incur significant degradation in quality of life because of progressive osteolytic vertebral fractures. No studies have investigated predictors of fracture progression, and limited data are available for predicting the development of future fractures.Purpose: The purpose of this study was to identify independent predictors of vertebral fracture progression and the development of future vertebral fracture.Study Design/setting: This is a consecutive retrospective chart review at a single tertiary-care center.Patient Sample: Patients with MM and pathologic vertebral fracture with radiographic follow-up between January 2007 and December 2013 were included. Radiographic measurements were recorded at presentation with fracture and first follow-up (FFU) after at least three months. Patients with a history of vertebral fracture not associated with MM were excluded.Outcome Measures: The primary outcome measure was the rate of vertebral body height loss. The development of future vertebral fracture was secondary.Methods: Anterior, middle, and posterior vertebral body heights were measured from midline sagittal T1-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Future fracture-free survival was calculated using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Multivariable regression was used to identify independent predictors of the rate of vertebral height loss. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards modeling was used to identify predictors of developing future vertebral fracture.Results: Thirty-three patients with 67 fractures were followed for a median of 10.8 months to FFU. Sixty-four percent of the patients were female and the median age was 66. The median additional vertebral height loss between presentation and FFU was 15%, whereas the median rate of vertebral height loss was 1.01%/month. More rapid vertebral height loss was predicted by dyslipidemia (β=0.36, p=.05), previous non-vertebral pathologic fracture related to MM (β=0.51, p=.01), and Durie-Salmon Stage III (β=0.66, p=.06). The median time to future fracture was 25.1 months; the 5-year future fracture-free survival rate was 34%. Osteopenia/osteoporosis (hazard ratio [HR]: 9.28, p<.01), serum light chains (HR: 1.37, p=.06), and serum calcium (HR: 1.62, p=.05) predicted the development of future vertebral fracture.Conclusions: We observed significant fracture progression over a short follow-up period. Several comorbidities and laboratory measures predicted more rapid vertebral height loss and the development of future fracture. Identifying risk factors for increased fracture burden may allow spine specialists to pursue earlier and appropriate intervention to optimize function and minimize morbidity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Design: A consecutive retrospective cohort study from 2008 to 2013 at a single tertiary-care institution was conducted.Objective: The aim of the study was to characterize recovery from pain and neurologic deficit after surgery for vertebral osteomyelitis (VO), and identify incidence of postoperative adverse events.Summary Of Background Data: A minority of patients with VO require surgery. Although prior studies have characterized outcomes after medical management, the morbidity after surgery is poorly defined.Methods: The primary outcome was change from baseline in a Modified McCormick Scale (MMS, 1-5 scale), whereas secondary outcomes included reoperation and change in self-reported pain Visual Analog Scale (VAS, 0-10 scale). MMS and VAS were collected throughout the postoperative course as surrogates for neurologic function and degree of pain. Intraoperative, short-term postoperative (<30 d), and long-term neurologic complications were recorded. New-onset neurologic deficits in the postoperative period were considered neurologic complications.Results: Fifty patients were included; a majority (52%) presented with a neurologic deficit. The median length of follow-up was 18 months. A statistically significant improvement in MMS was observed by 12 months postoperatively, whereas an improvement in VAS was observed by 3 months. The mean improvement in MMS at last follow-up was 0.35, whereas the mean improvement in VAS was 3.40. One quarter of patients required reoperation. At 24 months postoperatively, 10% died, 26% underwent reoperation, 42% experienced a neurologic complication, and 60% experienced at least one of these 3 adverse events.Conclusion: This is the first study to investigate neurologic complications, reoperation, and pain in a longitudinal manner after surgery for VO. We observed statistically significant improvements in MMS and VAS in the postoperative period. Despite these improvements, the 24-month incidence of overall adverse events was 60%. Patients and clinicians should be aware of the clinical improvement but high incidence of adverse events after surgical management of VO.Level Of Evidence: 4. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background context Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and posterior cervical foraminotomy (PCF) are both used to surgically treat patients with cervical radiculopathy and have been shown to have similar outcomes. Nonetheless, ACDF has become increasingly more commonplace compared with PCF, in part because of a pervasive belief that PCF has a higher incidence of required reoperations. Purpose To determine the reoperation rate at the index level of ACDF versus PCF 2 years postoperatively. Study design A retrospective case-control. Patient sample All patients that underwent ACDF and PCF for radiculopathy (excluding myelopathy indications) between January 2005 and December 2011. Outcome measures Revision surgery within 2 years, at the index level, was recorded. Methods Propensity score analysis between the ACDF and PCF groups was done, matching for age, gender, race, body mass index, tobacco use, median income and insurance status, primary surgeon, level of surgery, surgery duration, and length of hospital stay. Results Seven hundred ninety patients met the inclusion/exclusion criteria, including 627 ACDF and 163 PCF. Before propensity matching, the PCF group was found to be significantly older and more likely to be male. After matching, there were no significant differences between groups for any baseline characteristics. Reoperation rate at the index level was 4.8% for the ACDF group and 6.4% for the PCF group (p=.7) within 2 years of the initial surgery. Using equivalence testing, based on an a priori null hypothesis that a clinically meaningful difference between the two groups would be ≥5%, we found that the absolute difference of 1.6% was significantly (p=.01) less than our hypothesized difference. Conclusions This study demonstrates that even after accounting for patient demographics, operative characteristics, and primary surgeon, there are no significant differences in 2-year reoperation rates at the index level between ACDF and PCF. The reoperation rates are statistically equivalent. Thus, spine surgeons can operate via the posterior approach without putting patients at increased risk for revision surgery at the index level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background context C5 palsy is a debilitating postoperative complication of cervical decompression surgery. Although the prognosis is typically good, patients may be unable to perform basic activities of daily living, resulting in a decreased quality of life. No studies have investigated the quality-of-life and financial implications. Purpose The aim of the study was to determine the impact on quality-of-life and costs of C5 palsy after posterior cervical decompression and fusion (PCDF). Study design/setting A 2:1 matched retrospective cohort study was conducted at a single tertiary-care institution between 2007 and 2012. Patient sample Individuals who had undergone PCDF were included. Outcome measures Self-reported: Euroqol-5 Dimensions quality-of-life survey. Physiologic: postoperative change in deltoid and biceps strength via manual muscle testing. Functional: cost of interventions and missed workdays postoperatively. Methods Individuals with postoperative C5 palsy were matched to controls based on age, gender, body mass index, and diagnosis. Demographic, operative, postoperative, quality-of-life, and cost data were collected for both the C5 palsy and control groups, with 1-year follow-up. Results We reviewed 245 patients who underwent PCDF and 17 were identified (6.9%) with C5 palsy and matched to 34 controls. No significant differences in demographic or operative characteristics were observed between groups. The C5 palsy group had a significantly reduced capacity for self-care in the immediate postoperative (2.0±0.71 vs. 1.2±0.4, p<.001) and long-term (1.6±0.6 vs. 1.2±0.4, p=.004) periods and a significantly reduced capacity for completion of usual activities (2.4±0.7 vs. 1.9±0.6, p=.014) compared with controls. Furthermore, the C5 group had a significantly greater cost of physical/occupational therapy, an increase of $2,078 ($4,386±$2,801 vs. $2,307±$1,907, p=.013). There were no significant differences between groups in the cost of hospital stay, surgery, or other direct or indirect costs. Overall, there was a significantly greater cost ($1,918) for the C5 palsy group compared with the control group ($7,584±$3,992 vs. $5,666±$2,359, respectively, p=.038). Conclusions This study represents the first quantification of the impact of C5 palsy on patients' quality of life and the associated costs for care. We found that C5 palsy adds a significant burden on patients' quality of life and presents a financial burden to the health-care system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background context: The presentation of myelopathy in patients with the concomitant diagnosis of cervical stenosis (CS) and multiple sclerosis (MS) complicates both diagnosis and treatment because of the similarities of presentation and disease progression. There are only a few published case series that examine this unique patient population. Purpose: To define the demographic features and presenting symptoms of patients with both MS and CS and to investigate the immediate and long-term outcomes of surgery in patients with MS and CS. Study design/setting: Matched cohort-controlled retrospective review of 77 surgical patients in the MS group and 77 surgical patients in the control group. Outcome measures were immediate and long-term postoperative neck pain, radiculopathy, and myelopathy; Nurick Disability and modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association scores were collected as well. Methods: Retrospective review was performed for all patients presenting at one institution between January 1996 and July 2011 with coexisting diagnoses of MS and CS who had presenting symptoms of myelopathy and who then underwent cervical decompression surgery. Each study patient was individually matched to a control patient of the same gender and age that did not have MS, but that did have cervical spondylotic myelopathy or myeloradiculopathy. Each control patient underwent the same surgical procedure within the same year. Results: A total of 154 patients were reviewed, including 77 MS patients and 77 control patients, for an average follow-up of 58 months and 49 months, respectively. Patients in the control group were more likely to have preoperative neck pain (78% vs. 47%; p=.0001) and preoperative radiculopathy (90% vs. 75%; p=.03) than their counterparts in the MS group. Patients in the MS group had a significantly lower rate of postoperative resolution of myelopathic symptoms in both the short-term (39% in the MS group did not improve vs. 23% in the control group; p=.04) and the long-term (44% in the MS group did not improve vs. 19% in the control group; p=.004). Preoperative myelopathy scores were worse for the MS cohort as compared with the control cohort (1.8 vs. 1.2 in the Nurick scale, p<.0001; 13.7 vs. 15.0 in the modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association scale, p=.002). This difference in scores became even greater at the last follow-up visit with Nurick scores of 2.4 versus 0.9 (p<.0001) and modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association scores of 16.3 versus 12.4 (p<.0001) for the MS and control patients, respectively. Conclusions: Myelopathic patients with coexisting MS and CS improve after surgery, although at a lower rate and to a lesser degree than those without MS. Therefore, surgery should be considered for these patients. MS patients should be informed that myelopathy symptoms are less likely to be alleviated completely or may only be alleviated temporarily because of progression of MS and that surgery can help alleviate neck pain and radicular symptoms. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]