Search

Prior studies demonstrate that muscle and bone health are integrally related, and both independently impact orthopedic surgery outcomes. However, relationships between bone density, in vivo microarchitecture, and muscle area have not been previously investigated in orthopedic surgery patients. This study assessed associations between psoas cross sectional area (CSA), bone mineral density (BMD), and microstructure in a cohort undergoing spine fusion. Pre-operatively, bilateral psoas CSA was measured on axial lumbar spine CT in the L3-L4 disc space. To adjust for body size, Psoas Muscle Index (PMI) was calculated (CSA divided by the square of patient height). High resolution peripheral quantitative CT (HR-pQCT, XtremeCT2) assessed volumetric BMD (vBMD), cortical (Ct) and trabecular (Tb) microarchitecture at the distal radius and tibia. Areal BMD (aBMD) was measured by DXA at the lumbar spine (LS), total hip (TH), femoral neck (FN), and the 1/3 radius (1/3R). Pearson correlations related psoas CSA and bone imaging parameters before and after correcting for height and weight. Among 88 patients included, mean age was 63 ± 12 years, BMI was 28 ± 7 kg/m 2 , 47 (53 %) were female. Larger psoas CSA was associated with higher vBMD, greater Ct thickness and better Tb microarchitecture (higher Tb number and lower Tb separation) at the tibia and radius. Larger psoas CSA was also associated with greater aBMD at TH and FN bilaterally and 1/3R (r 0.33 to 0.61; p < 0.002 for all comparisons). Psoas CSA was not associated with aBMD at the LS. Similar results were observed when relating PMI, and adjusting for age, height and weight to HR-pQCT and DXA measurements. Investigation of subgroups by sex demonstrated that relationships were similar magnitude among women but not the men. Patients who underwent primary compared to revision spine surgery had similar associations. Our results demonstrate a link between psoas muscle size and peripheral bone microarchitecture among patients undergoing posterior lumbar spinal fusion. Given the importance of both muscle and skeletal integrity to the success of spine surgery, further study regarding the associations between measurements of psoas muscle, bone microarchitecture, and surgical outcomes is warranted., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Mr. Raphael, Ms. D'Erasmo, Dr. Dash, Ms. Billings, and Dr. Song declare no competing financial interests. Dr. Kim reports relationships with Acuity Surgical (equity or stocks), Aspen Medical Products Inc. (board membership), HS2, LLC (equity or stocks), International Spine Study Group (funding grants), K2 Medical Systems Limited (equity or stocks and speaking and lecture fees), NuVasive Inc. (board membership), SPINE STUD (equity or stocks), Vivex Biologics, Inc. (board membership), and with Zimmer Biomet (consulting or advisory fees and equity or stocks). Dr. Cunningham reports relationships with Radius Health Inc. (funding grants) and Sustain Surgical (equity or stocks). Dr. Nieves reports relationships with Radius Health Inc. (funding grants). Dr. Stein reports relationships with Radius Health Inc. (funding grants) and Novartis (funding grants). Dr. Iyer reports relationships with HS2,LLC (ownership interest and editorial board), HSS ASC Development network, LLC (ownership interest), Joint Effort Administrative Services Organization, LLC (ownership interest), Innovasis (consultant), and Intrinsic Therapeutics (consultant). Dr. Qureshi reports relationships with AMOM opportunities (Honoraria), Globus Medical, Inc. (speakers' bureau, consultant, and royalties), HS2, LLC (ownership interest), HSS ASC Development Network, LLC (ownership interest), Stryker K2M (consultant, royalties and designer), Tissue Differentiation Intelligence (ownership interest), See All AI (ownership interest, scientific advisory board), and Viseon, Inc. (research support, consultant). Dr. Breighner reports a relationship with Stryker (consulting). FUNDING: This research was supported by R01AR081574 NIH/NIAMS and the Anna-Maria and Stephen Kellen Foundation., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Study Design: Retrospective review of prospectively collected data., Objective: To identify the risk factors associated with failure to respond to erector spinae plane (ESP) block following minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF)., Summary of Background Data: ESP block is an emerging opioid-sparing regional anesthetic that has been shown to reduce immediate postoperative pain and opioid demand following MI-TLIF-however, not all patients who receive ESP blocks perioperatively experience a reduction in immediate postoperative pain., Methods: This was a retrospective review of consecutive patients undergoing one-level MI-TLIF who received ESP blocks by a single anesthesiologist perioperatively at a single institution. ESP blocks were administered in the OR following induction. Failure to respond to ESP block was defined as patients with a first numerical rating scale (NRS) score postsurgery of >5.7 (mean immediate postoperative NRS score of control cohort undergoing MI TLIF without ESP block). Multivariable logistic regressions were performed to identify predictors for failure to respond to ESP block., Results: A total of 134 patients were included (mean age 60.6 yr, 43.3% females). The median and interquartile range (IQR) first pain score postsurgery was 2.5 (0.0-7.5). Forty-nine (36.6%) patients failed to respond to ESP block. In the multivariable regression analysis, several independent predictors for failure to respond to ESP block following MI TLIF were identified: female sex (OR 2.33, 95% CI 1.04-5.98, P =0.040), preoperative opioid use (OR 2.75, 95% CI 1.03-7.30, P =0.043), anxiety requiring medication (OR 3.83, 95% CI 1.27-11.49, P =0.017), and hyperlipidemia (OR 3.15, 95% CI 1.31-7.55, P =0.010)., Conclusions: Our study identified several predictors for failure to respond to ESP block following MI TLIF, including female gender, preoperative opioid pain medication use, anxiety, and hyperlipidemia. These findings may help inform the approach to counseling patients on perioperative outcomes and pain expectations following MI-TLIF with ESP block., Level of Evidence: 3., Competing Interests: S.I.: Globus Medical: Paid presenter or speaker; Stryker: Paid presenter or speaker; Vertebral Columns/International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery (ISASS): Editorial or governing board; HS2, LLC: Ownership/Equity/Investment; Innovasis: Research Support (either personally or through institution). S.Q.: aMOpportunities: Other financial or material support; Annals of Translational Medicine: Editorial or governing board; Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons: Board or committee member; Cervical Spine Research Society: Board or committee member; Contemporary Spine Surgery: Editorial or governing board; Globus Medical: IP royalties; Paid consultant; Paid presenter or speaker; Hospital Special Surgery Journal: Editorial or governing board; HS2, LLC: Stock or stock Options; International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery (ISASS) - Program Committee member: Board or committee member; Lifelink.com: Other financial or material support; Lumbar Spine Research Society: Board or committee member; Minimally Invasive Spine Study Group: Board or committee member; North American Spine Society: Board or committee member; Simplify Medical, Inc.: Other financial or material support; Society of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery (SMISS) - Program Committee member: Board or committee member; Spinal Simplicity: Other financial or material support; SpineGuard, Inc.: Paid consultant; Stryker: IP royalties; Paid consultant; Surgalign: Paid consultant; Tissue Differentiation Intelligence: Stock or stock Options; Viseon, Inc.: Paid consultant; Research support; Clinical Spine Surgery: Editorial or governing board. AH: Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) - project number 526240791. The remaining authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To compare the outcomes of decompression alone and fusion for L4-5 DLS in different age cohorts (< 70 years, ≥ 70 years)., Methods: This retrospective cohort study included patients who underwent minimally invasive decompression or fusion for L4-5 DLS and had a minimum of 1-year follow-up. Outcome measures were: (1) patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) (Oswestry Disability Index, ODI; Visual Analog Scale back and leg, VAS; 12-Item Short Form Survey Physical Component Score, SF-12 PCS), (2) minimal clinically important difference (MCID), (3) patient acceptable symptom state (PASS), (4) response on the global rating change (GRC) scale, and (5) complication rates. The decompression and fusion groups were compared for outcomes separately in the < 70-year and ≥ 70-year age cohorts., Results: 233 patients were included, out of which 52% were < 70 years. Patients < 70 years showed non-significant improvement in SF-12 PCS and significantly lower MCID achievement rates for VAS back after decompression compared to fusion. Analysis of the ≥ 70-year age cohort showed no significant differences between the decompression and fusion groups in the improvement in PROMs, MCID/PASS achievement rates, and responses on GRC. Patients ≥ 70 years undergoing fusion had significantly higher in-hospital complication rates. When analyzed irrespective of the surgery type, both < 70-year and ≥ 70-year age cohorts showed significant improvement in PROMs with no significant difference., Conclusions: Patients < 70 years undergoing decompression alone did not show significant improvement in physical function and had significantly less MCID achievement rate for back pain compared to fusion. Patients ≥ 70 years showed no difference in outcomes between decompression alone and fusion., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Background Context: Robotic spine surgery, utilizing 3D imaging and robotic arms, has been shown to improve the accuracy of pedicle screw placement compared to conventional methods, although its superiority remains under debate. There are few studies evaluating the accuracy of 3D navigated versus robotic-guided screw placement across lumbar levels, addressing anatomical challenges to refine surgical strategies and patient safety., Purpose: This study aims to investigate the pedicle screw placement accuracy between 3D navigation and robotic arm-guided systems across distinct lumbar levels., Study Design: A retrospective review of a prospectively collected registry., Patient Sample: Patients undergoing fusion surgery with pedicle screw placement in the prone position, using either via 3D image navigation only or robotic arm guidance., Outcome Measure: Radiographical screw accuracy was assessed by the postoperative computed tomography (CT) according to the Gertzbein-Robbins classification, particularly focused on accuracy at different lumbar levels., Methods: Accuracy of screw placement in the 3D navigation (Nav group) and robotic arm guidance (Robo group) was compared using Chi-squared test/Fisher's exact test with effect size measured by Cramer's V, both overall and at each specific lumbosacral spinal level., Results: A total of 321 patients were included (Nav, 157; Robo, 189) and evaluated 1210 screws (Nav, 651; Robo 559). The Robo group demonstrated significantly higher overall accuracy (98.6 vs 93.9%; p<.001, V=0.25). This difference of no breach screw rate was signified the most at the L3 level (No breach screw: Robo 91.3 vs 57.8%, p<.001, V=0.35) followed by L4 (89.6 vs 64.7%, p<.001, V=0.28), and L5 (92.0 vs 74.5%, p<.001, V=0.22). However, screw accuracy at S1 was not significant between the groups (81.1 vs 72.0%, V=0.10)., Conclusion: This study highlights the enhanced accuracy of robotic arm-guided systems compared to 3D navigation for pedicle screw placement in lumbar fusion surgeries, especially at the L3, L4, and L5 levels. However, at the S1 level, both systems exhibit similar effectiveness, underscoring the importance of understanding each system's specific advantages for optimization of surgical complications., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest One or more of the authors declare financial or professional relationships on ICMJE-TSJ disclosure forms., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Study Design: Retrospective review of prospectively collected data., Objective: To analyze temporal trends in improvement after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF)., Summary of Background Data: Although several studies have shown that patients improve significantly after MIS TLIF, evidence regarding the temporal trends in improvement is still largely lacking., Methods: Patients who underwent primary single-level MIS TLIF for degenerative conditions of the lumbar spine and had a minimum of 2-year follow-up were included. Outcome measures were: 1) patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) (Oswestry Disability Index, ODI; Visual Analog Scale, VAS back and leg; 12-Item Short Form Survey Physical Component Score, SF-12 PCS); 2) global rating change (GRC); 3) minimal clinically important difference (MCID); and 4) return to activities. Timepoints analyzed were preoperative, 2 weeks, 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years. Trends across these timepoints were plotted on graphs., Results: 236 patients were included. VAS back and VAS leg were found to have statistically significant improvement compared to the previous timepoint up to 3 months after surgery. ODI and SF-12 PCS were found to have statistically significant improvement compared to the previous timepoint up to 6 months after surgery. Beyond these timepoints, there was no significant improvement in PROMs. 80% of patients reported feeling better compared to preoperative by 3 months. >50% of patients achieved MCID in all PROMs by 3 months. Most patients returned to driving, returned to work, and discontinued narcotics at an average of 21, 20, and 10 days, respectively., Conclusions: Patients are expected to improve up to 6 months after MIS TLIF. Back pain and leg pain improve up to 3 months and disability and physical function improve up to 6 months. Beyond these timepoints, the trends in improvement tend to reach a plateau. 80% of patients feel better compared to preoperative by 3 months after surgery., Competing Interests: S.A.Q.: Royalties: Stryker K2M, Globus Medical, Inc.; Globus Medical, Inc.: HS2, LLC; Private Investments: Tissue Differentiation Intelligence; Consulting: Stryker K2M, Globus Medical, Inc.; Speaking and/or Teaching Arrangements: AMOpportunities, Globus Medical, Inc.; Board of Directors: Society of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery; Scientific Advisory Board/Other Office: International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery, Cervical Spine Research Society, Lumbar Spine Research Society, North American Spine Society, Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons, Simplify Medical, Inc., LifeLink.com Inc., Society of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery, Minimally Invasive Spine Study Group, Spinal Simplicity, LLC, Contemporary Spine Surgery, Annals of Translational Medicine. Sravisht Iyer: Innovasis (Research Support), Globus Medical (Speaker’s Bureau), Healthgrades (Advisory Board Member), Stryker (Speaker’s Bureau). The remaining authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Surgical counseling enables shared decision making and optimal outcomes by improving patients' understanding about their pathologies, surgical options, and expected outcomes. Here, we aimed to provide practical answers to frequently asked questions (FAQs) from patients undergoing an anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion (ACDF) or cervical disk replacement (CDR) for the treatment of degenerative conditions., Methods: Patients who underwent primary one-level or two-level ACDF or CDR for the treatment of degenerative conditions with a minimum of 1-year follow-up were included. Data were used to answer 10 FAQs that were generated from author's experience of commonly asked questions in clinic before ACDF or CDR., Results: A total of 395 patients (181 ACDF, 214 CDR) were included. (1, 2, and 3) Will my neck/arm pain and physical function improve? Patients report notable improvement in all patient-reported outcome measures. (4) Is there a chance I will get worse? 13% (ACDF) and 5% (CDR) reported worsening. (5) Will I receive a significant amount of radiation? Patients on average received a 3.7 (ACDF) and 5.5 mGy (CDR) dose during. (6) How long will I stay in the hospital? Most patients get discharged on postoperative day one. (7) What is the likelihood that I will have a complication? 13% (8% minor and 5% major) experienced in-hospital complications (ACDF) and 5% (all minor) did (CDR). (8) Will I need another surgery? 2.2% (ACDF) and 2.3% (CDR) of patients required a revision surgery. (9 & 10) When will I be able to return to work/driving? Most patients return to working (median of 16 [ACDF] and 14 days [CDR]) and driving (median of 16 [ACDF] and 12 days [CDR])., Conclusions: The answers to the FAQs can assist surgeons in evidence-based patient counseling., (Copyright © 2024 by the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.)

Background Context: Isolated decompression and decompression with instrumented fusion are accepted surgical treatments for lumbar spondylolisthesis. Although isolated decompression is a less costly solution with similar patient-reported outcomes, it is associated with higher rates of reoperation than primary fusion., Purpose: To determine the costs associated with primary decompression, primary fusion, and decompression and fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis. We further sought to establish at what revision rate is primary decompression still a less costly surgical treatment for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis., Study Design/setting: A retrospective database study of the Medicare Provider Analysis and Review (MEDPAR) limited data set., Patient Sample: Patients who underwent single-level fusion or decompression for degenerative spondylolisthesis., Outcome Measures: Cost of surgical care., Methods: All inpatient stays that underwent surgery for single-level lumbar/lumbosacral degenerative spondylolisthesis in the 2019 calendar year (n=6,653) were queried from the MEDPAR limited data set. Patients were stratified into three cohorts: primary decompression (n=300), primary fusion (n=5,757), and revision fusion (n=566). Univariate analysis was conducted to determine cost differences between these groups and results were confirmed with multivariable regression. An economic analysis was then done to determine at what revision rate would primary decompression still be a less costly treatment choice., Results: on univariate analysis, the cost of primary single-level decompression for spondylolisthesis was $14,690±9,484, the cost of primary single-level fusion was $26,376±11,967, and revision fusion was $26,686±11,309 (p<0.001). on multivariate analysis, primary fusion was associated with an increased cost of $3,751, and revision fusion was associated with increased cost of $7,502 (95%ci: 2,990-4,512, p<0.001). economic analysis found that a revision rate less than or equal to 43.8% would still result in primary decompression being less costly for a practice than primary fusion for all patients., Conclusions: Isolated decompression for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis is a less costly treatment choice even with rates of revision fusion as high as 43.8%. This was true even with an assumed revision rate of 0% after primary fusion. This study solely looks at cost data, however, and many patients may still benefit from primary fusion when appropriately indicated., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest One or more of the authors declare financial or professional relationships on ICMJE-TSJ disclosure forms., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Prior studies investigating the use of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) for treatment of degenerative lumbar conditions and concomitant sagittal deformity have not stratified patients by preoperative pelvic incidence (PI)-lumbar lordosis (LL) mismatch, which is the earliest parameter to deteriorate in mild sagittal deformity. Thus, the aim of the present study was to determine the impact of preoperative PI-LL mismatch on clinical outcomes and sagittal balance restoration among patients undergoing MI-TLIF for degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS)., Methods: Consecutive adult patients undergoing primary 1-level MI-TLIF between April 2017 and April 2022 for DS with ≥ 6 months radiographic follow-up were included. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) included the Oswestry Disability Index, visual analog scale (VAS), 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-12), and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System at preoperative, early postoperative (< 6 months), and late postoperative (≥ 6 months) time points. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for PROMs was also evaluated. Radiographic parameters included PI, LL, pelvic tilt (PT), and sagittal vertical axis (SVA). Patients were categorized into balanced and unbalanced groups based on preoperative PI-LL mismatch according to age-adjusted alignment goals. Changes in radiographic parameters and PROMs were evaluated., Results: Eighty patients were included (L4-5 82.5%, grade I spondylolisthesis 82.5%, unbalanced 58.8%). Mean clinical and radiographic follow-up were 17.0 and 8.3 months, respectively. The average preoperative PI-LL was 18.8° in the unbalanced group and -3.3° in the balanced group. Patients with preoperative PI-LL mismatch had significantly worse preoperative PT (26.2° vs 16.4°, p < 0.001) and SVA (53.2 vs 9.0 mm, p = 0.001) compared with balanced patients. Patients with preoperative PI-LL mismatch also showed significantly worse PI-LL (16.0° vs 0.54°, p < 0.001), PT (25.9° vs 18.7°, p < 0.001), and SVA (49.4 vs 22.8 mm, p = 0.013) at long-term follow-up. No significant radiographic improvement was observed among unbalanced patients. All patients demonstrated significant improvements in all PROMs (p < 0.05) except for SF-12 mental component score. Achievement of MCID for VAS back score was significantly greater among patients with preoperative PI-LL mismatch (85.7% vs 65.5%, p = 0.045)., Conclusions: Although 1-level MI-TLIF did not restore sagittal alignment in patients with preoperative PI-LL mismatch, patients presenting with DS can expect significant improvement in PROMs following 1-level MI-TLIF regardless of preoperative alignment or extent of correction. Thus, attaining good clinical outcomes in patients with mild sagittal imbalance may not require addressing imbalance directly.

Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the correlation between patient-perceived changes in health and commonly utilized patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in lumbar spine surgery., Methods: This was a retrospective review of prospectively collected data on consecutive patients who underwent lumbar microdiscectomy, lumbar decompression, or lumbar fusion at a single academic institution from 2017 to 2023. Correlation between the global rating of change (GRC) questionnaire, a 5-item Likert scale (much better, slightly better, about the same, slightly worse, and much worse), and PROMs (Oswestry Disability Index, visual analog scale for back and leg pain, 12-Item Short Form Health Survey Physical Component Summary and Mental Component Summary, and PROMIS physical function) was assessed using Spearman's rank correlation coefficients., Results: A total of 1871 patients (397 microdiscectomies, 965 decompressions, and 509 fusions) were included. A majority of patients in each group rated their lumbar condition as much better at each postoperative time point compared with preoperatively and reported improved health status at each postoperative time point compared with the previous follow-up visit. Statistically significant but weak to moderate correlations were found between GRC and change in PROM scores from the preoperative time point. Correlation between GRC and change in PROM scores from the prior visit showed some statistically significant correlations, but the strengths ranged from very weak to weak., Conclusions: A majority of patients undergoing lumbar microdiscectomy, decompression, or fusion endorsed notable improvements in health status in the early postoperative period and continued to improve at late follow-up. However, commonly used PROMs demonstrated very weak to moderate correlations with patient-perceived changes in overall lumbar spine-related health status as determined by GRC. Therefore, currently used PROMs may not be as sensitive at detecting these changes or may not be adequately reflecting changes in health conditions that are meaningful to patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery.

Study Design: Retrospective cohort study., Objective: (1) To develop a reliable grading system to assess the severity of posterior intervertebral osteophytes and (2) to investigate the impact of posterior intervertebral osteophytes on clinical outcomes after L5-S1 decompression and fusion through anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) and minimally-invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF)., Background: There is limited evidence regarding the clinical implications of posterior lumbar vertebral body osteophytes for ALIF and MIS-TLIF surgeries and there are no established grading systems that define the severity of these posterior lumbar intervertebral osteophytes., Patients and Methods: A retrospective analysis of patients undergoing L5-S1 ALIF or MIS-TLIF was performed. Preoperative and postoperative patient-reported outcome measures of the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and leg Visual Analog Scale (VAS) at 2-week, 6-week, 12-week, and 6-month follow-up time points were assessed. Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for ODI of 14.9 and VAS leg of 2.8 were utilized. Osteophyte grade was based on the ratio of osteophyte length to foraminal width. "High-grade" osteophytes were defined as a maximal osteophyte length >50% of the total foraminal width., Results: A total of 70 consecutive patients (32 ALIF and 38 MIS-TLIF) were included in the study. There were no significant differences between the two cohorts in patient-reported outcome measures or achievement of MCID for Leg VAS or ODI preoperatively or at any follow-ups. On multivariate analysis, neither the surgical approach nor the presence of high-grade foraminal osteophytes was associated with leg VAS or ODI scores at any follow-up time point. In addition, neither the surgical approach nor the presence of high-grade foraminal osteophytes was associated with the achievement of MCID for leg VAS or ODI at 6 months., Conclusion: ALIF and MIS-TLIF are both valid options for treating degenerative spine conditions and lumbar radiculopathy, even in the presence of high-grade osteophytes that significantly occupy the intervertebral foramen., Level of Evidence: 3., Competing Interests: M.S.F has the following disclosures: Johnson & Johnson: Paid consultant. S.Q. has the following disclosures: AMOpportunities: Other financial or material support; Annals of Translational Medicine: Editorial or governing board; Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons: Board or committee member; Cervical Spine Research Society: Board or committee member; Contemporary Spine Surgery: Editorial or governing board; Globus Medical: IP royalties; Paid consultant; Paid presenter or speaker; Hospital Special Surgery Journal: Editorial or governing board; HS2, LLC: Stock or stock Options; International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery (ISASS) - Program Committee member: Board or committee member; Lifelink.com: Other financial or material support; Lumbar Spine Research Society: Board or committee member; Minimally Invasive Spine Study Group: Board or committee member; North American Spine Society: Board or committee member; Simplify Medical, Inc.: Other financial or material support; Society of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery (SMISS) - Program Committee member: Board or committee member; Spinal Simplicity: Other financial or material support; SpineGuard, Inc.: Paid consultant; Stryker: IP royalties; Paid consultant; Surgalign: Paid consultant; Tissue Differentiation Intelligence: Stock or stock Options; Viseon, Inc.: Paid consultant; Research support. S.I. has the following disclosures: Globus Medical: Paid presenter or speaker; Stryker: Paid presenter or speaker; Vertebral Columns/International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery (ISASS): Editorial or governing board. The remaining authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Multiple animal models have previously been utilized to investigate anterior fusion techniques, but a mouse model has yet to be developed. The purpose of this study was to develop murine anterior interbody and posterolateral fusion techniques., Methods: Mice underwent either anterior interbody or posterolateral spinal fusion. A protocol was developed for both procedures, including a description of the relevant anatomy. Samples were subjected to micro-computed tomography to assess fusion success and underwent biomechanical testing with use of 4-point bending. Lastly, samples were fixed and embedded for histologic evaluation., Results: Surgical techniques for anterior interbody and posterolateral fusion were developed. The fusion rate was 83.3% in the anterior interbody model and 100% in the posterolateral model. Compared with a control, the posterolateral model exhibited a greater elastic modulus. Histologic analysis demonstrated endochondral ossification between bridging segments, further confirming the fusion efficacy in both models., Conclusions: The murine anterior interbody and posterolateral fusion models are efficacious and provide an ideal platform for studying the molecular and cellular mechanisms mediating spinal fusion., Clinical Relevance: Given the extensive genetic tools available in murine disease models, use of fusion models such as ours can enable determination of the underlying genetic pathways involved in spinal fusion., Competing Interests: Disclosure: This study was supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) under award number T32-AR078751 (K.W.M.) and by NIH awards DP5OD021351 and R01AR075585 (M.B.G.). This study is also based on research supported by Pershing Square Sohn Cancer Research Alliance and Pershing Square Foundation MIND Prize awards to M.B.G. M.B.G. holds a Career Award for Medical Scientists from the Burroughs Welcome Fund. S.I. is supported by the Kellen Scholar Award. J.S. is supported by a Children’s Tumor Foundation Young Investigator Award (CTF-2023-01-005; https://doi.org/10.48105/CTF.CTF-2023-01-005.pc.gr.172007 ). A.R.Y. is supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases of the National Institutes of Health under award number T32-AR071302-07. S.B. is supported by a National Research Foundation of Korea award funded by the Ministry of Education (NRF-2021R1A6A3A14038667), the Arthritis Grant Program from the Arthritis National Research Foundation (1065843), and Weill Cornell Medicine JumpStart Awards (Year 2022). S.D. is supported by an NIH K99 grant (DE031819-01), a Department of Defense grant (W81XWH-22-PRMRP-DA), and Weill Cornell Medicine JumpStart Awards (Year 2019). The Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest forms are provided with the online version of the article ( http://links.lww.com/JBJS/H833 )., (Copyright © 2024 by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Incorporated.)

Study Design: Cross-sectional survey and retrospective review of prospectively collected data., Objective: To explore how patients perceive their decision to pursue spine surgery for degenerative conditions and evaluate factors correlated with decisional regret., Summary of Background Data: Prior research shows that one-in-five older adults regret their decision to undergo spinal deformity surgery. However, no studies have investigated decisional regret in patients with degenerative conditions., Methods: Patients who underwent cervical or lumbar spine surgery for degenerative conditions (decompression, fusion, or disk replacement) between April 2017 and December 2020 were included. The Ottawa Decisional Regret Questionnaire was implemented to assess prevalence of decisional regret. Questionnaire scores were used to categorize patients into low (<40) or medium/high (≥40) decisional regret cohorts. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) included the Oswestry Disability Index, Patient-reported Outcomes Measurement Information System, Visual Analog Scale (VAS) Back/Leg/Arm, and Neck Disability Index at preoperative, early postoperative (<6 mo), and late postoperative (≥6 mo) timepoints. Differences in demographics, operative variables, and PROMs between low and medium/high decisional regret groups were evaluated., Results: A total of 295 patients were included (mean follow-up: 18.2 mo). Overall, 92% of patients agreed that having surgery was the right decision, and 90% would make the same decision again. In contrast, 6% of patients regretted the decision to undergo surgery, and 7% noted that surgery caused them harm. In-hospital complications (P=0.02) and revision fusion (P=0.026) were significantly associated with higher regret. The medium/high decisional regret group also exhibited significantly worse PROMs at long-term follow-up for all metrics except VAS-Arm, and worse achievement of minimum clinically important difference for Oswestry Disability Index (P=0.007), Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (P<0.0001), and VAS-Leg (P<0.0001)., Conclusions: Higher decisional regret was encountered in the setting of need for revision fusion, increased in-hospital complications, and worse PROMs. However, 90% of patients overall were satisfied with their decision to undergo spine surgery for degenerative conditions. Current tools for assessing patient improvement postoperatively may not adequately capture the psychosocial values and patient expectations implicated in decisional regret., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Study Design: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis., Objective: The objective of this study is to synthesize the early data regarding and analyze the safety profile of outpatient lumbar fusion., Summary of Background Data: Performing lumbar fusion in an outpatient or ambulatory setting is becoming an increasingly employed strategy to provide effective value-based care. As this is an emerging option for surgeons to employ in their practices, the data is still in its infancy., Methods: This study was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Studies that described outcomes of inpatient and outpatient lumbar fusion cohorts were searched from PubMed, Medline, The Cochrane Library, and Embase. Rates of individual medical and surgical complications, readmission, and reoperation were collected when applicable. Patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) were additionally collected if reported. Individual pooled comparative meta-analysis was performed for outcomes of medical complications, surgical complications, readmission, and reoperation. PROMs were reviewed and qualitatively reported., Results: The search yielded 14 publications that compared outpatient and inpatient cohorts with a total of 75,627 patients. Odds of readmission demonstrated no significant difference between outpatient and inpatient cohorts [OR=0.94 (0.81-1.11)]. Revision surgery similarly was no different between the cohorts [OR=0.81 (0.57-1.15)]. Pooled medical and surgical complications demonstrated significantly decreased odds for outpatient cohorts compared with inpatient cohorts [OR=0.58 (0.34-0.50), OR=0.41 (0.50-0.68), respectively]. PROM measures were largely the same between the cohorts when reported, with few studies showing better ODI and VAS Leg outcomes among outpatient cohorts compared with inpatient cohorts., Conclusion: Preliminary data regarding the safety of outpatient lumbar fusion demonstrates a favorable safety profile in appropriately selected patients, with PROMs remaining comparable in this setting. There is no data in the form of prospective and randomized trials which is necessary to definitively change practice., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Study Design: Matched cohort comparison., Objective: To determine perioperative outcomes of erector spinae plane (ESP) block for minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF)., Summary of Background Data: There is a paucity of data on the impact of lumbar ESP block on perioperative outcomes and its safety in MI-TLIF., Materials and Methods: Patients who underwent 1-level MI-TLIF and received the ESP block (group E ) were included. An age and sex-matched control group was selected from a historical cohort that received the standard-of-care (group NE). The primary outcome of this study was 24-hour opioid consumption in morphine milligram equivalents. Secondary outcomes were pain severity measured by a numeric rating scale, opioid-related side effects, and hospital length of stay. Outcomes were compared between the two groups., Results: Ninety-eight and 55 patients were included in the E and NE groups, respectively. There were no significant differences between the two cohorts in patient demographics. Group E had lower 24-hour postoperative opioid consumption ( P = 0.117, not significant), reduced opioid consumption on a postoperative day (POD) 0 ( P = 0.016), and lower first pain scores postsurgery ( P < 0.001). Group E had lower intraoperative opioid requirements ( P < 0.001), and significantly lower average numeric rating scale pain scores on POD 0 ( P = 0.034). Group E reported fewer opioid-related side effects as compared with group NE, although this was not statistically significant. The average highest postoperative pain score within 3 hours postprocedurally was 6.9 and 7.7 in the E and NE cohorts, respectively ( P = 0.029). The median length of stay was comparable between groups with the majority of patients in both groups being discharged on POD 1., Conclusions: In our retrospective matched cohort, ESP blocks resulted in reduced opioid consumption and decreased pain scores on POD 0 in patients undergoing MI-TLIF., Level of Evidence: Level 3., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background Context: Navigation and robotic technologies have emerged as an alternative option to conventional freehand techniques for pedicle screw insertion. However, the effectiveness of these technologies in reducing the perioperative complications of spinal fusion surgery remains limited due to the small cohort size in the existing literature., Purpose: To investigate whether utilization of robotically navigated pedicle screw insertion can reduce the perioperative complications of spinal fusion surgery-including reoperations-with a sizeable cohort., Study Design: Retrospective study., Patient Sample: Patients who underwent primary lumbar fusion surgery between 2019 and 2022., Outcome Measures: Perioperative complications including readmission, reoperation, its reasons, estimated blood loss, operative time, and length of hospital stay., Methods: Patients' data were collected including age, sex, race, body mass index, upper-instrumented vertebra, lower-instrumented vertebra, number of screws inserted, and primary procedure name. Patients were classified into the following two groups: freehand group and robot group. The variable-ratio greedy matching was utilized to create the matched cohorts by propensity score and compared the outcomes between the two group., Results: A total of 1,633 patients who underwent primary instrumented spinal lumbar fusion surgery were initially identified (freehand 1,286; robot 347). After variable ratio matching was performed with age, sex, body mass index, fused levels, and upper instrumented vertebrae level, 694 patients in the freehand group and 347 patients in robot groups were selected. The robot group showed less estimated blood loss (418.9±398.9 vs 199.2±239.6 ml; p<.001), shorter LOS (4.1±3.1 vs 3.2±3.0 days; p<.001) and similar operative time (212.5 vs 222.0 minutes; p=.151). Otherwise, there was no significant difference in readmission rate (3.6% vs 2.6%; p=.498), reoperation rate (3.2% vs 2.6%; p=.498), and screw malposition requiring reoperation (five cases, 0.7% vs one case, 0.3%; p=1.000)., Conclusions: Perioperative complications requiring readmission and reoperation were similar between fluoroscopy guided freehand and robotic surgery. Robot-guided pedicle screw insertion can enhance surgical efficiency by reducing intraoperative blood loss and length of hospital stay without extending operative time., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest One or more of the authors declare financial or professional relationships on ICMJE-TSJ disclosure forms., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Study Design: Retrospective review of a prospectively maintained multisurgeon registry., Objective: To study recovery kinetics and associated factors after cervical spine surgery., Summary of Background Data: Few studies have described return to activities cervical spine surgery. This is a big gap in the literature, as preoperative counseling and expectations before surgery are important., Materials and Methods: Patients who underwent either anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) or cervical disk replacement (CDR) were included. Data collected included preoperative patient-reported outcome measures, return to driving, return to working, and discontinuation of opioids data. A multivariable regression was conducted to identify the factors associated with return to driving by 15 days, return to working by 15 days, and discontinuing opioids by 30 days., Results: Seventy ACDF patients and 70 CDR patients were included. Overall, 98.2% of ACDF patients and 98% of CDR patients returned to driving in 16 and 12 days, respectively; 85.7% of ACDF patients and 90.9% of CDR patients returned to work in 16 and 14 days; and 98.3% of ACDF patients and 98.3% of CDR patients discontinued opioids in a median of seven and six days. Though not significant, minimal (odds ratio (OR)=1.65) and moderate (OR=1.79) disability was associated with greater odds of returning to driving by 15 days. Sedentary work (OR=0.8) and preoperative narcotics (OR=0.86) were associated with decreased odds of returning to driving by 15 days. Medium (OR=0.81) and heavy (OR=0.78) intensity occupations were associated with decreased odds of returning to work by 15 days. High school education (OR=0.75), sedentary work (OR=0.79), and retired/not working (OR=0.69) were all associated with decreased odds of discontinuing opioids by 30 days., Conclusions: Recovery kinetics for ACDF and CDR are comparable. Most patients return to all activities after ACDF and CDR within 16 days. These findings serve as an important compass for preoperative counseling., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Study Design: Retrospective review of prospectively collected multisurgeon data., Objective: Examine the rate, clinical impact, and predictors of subsidence after expandable minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) cage., Summary of Background Data: Expandable cage technology has been adopted in MI-TLIF to reduce the risks and optimize outcomes. Although subsidence is of particular concern when using expandable technology as the force required to expand the cage can weaken the endplates, its rates, predictors, and outcomes lack evidence., Materials and Methods: Patients who underwent 1 or 2-level MI-TLIF using expandable cages for degenerative lumbar conditions and had a follow-up of >1 year were included. Preoperative and immediate, early, and late postoperative radiographs were reviewed. Subsidence was determined if the average anterior/posterior disc height decreased by >25% compared with the immediate postoperative value. Patient-reported outcomes were collected and analyzed for differences at the early (<6 mo) and late (>6 mo) time points. Fusion was assessed by 1-year postoperative computed tomography., Results: One hundred forty-eight patients were included (mean age, 61 yr, 86% 1-level, 14% 2-level). Twenty-two (14.9%) demonstrated subsidence. Although statistically not significant, patients with subsidence were older, had lower bone mineral density, and had higher body mass index and comorbidity burden. Operative time was significantly higher ( P = 0.02) and implant width was lower ( P < 0.01) for subsided patients. Visual analog scale-leg was significantly lower for subsided patients compared with nonsubsided patients at a >6 months time point. Long-term (>6 mo) patient-acceptable symptom state achievement rate was lower for subsided patients (53% vs . 77%), although statistically not significant ( P = 0.065). No differences existed in complication, reoperation, or fusion rates., Conclusions: Of the patients, 14.9% experienced subsidence predicted by narrower implants. Although subsidence did not have a significant impact on most patient-reported outcome measures and complication, reoperation, or fusion rates, patients had lower visual analog scale-leg and patient-acceptable symptom state achievement rates at the >6-month time point., Level of Evidence: Level 4., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background Context: While cervical disc replacement (CDR) has been emerging as a reliable and efficacious treatment option for degenerative cervical spine pathology, not all patients undergoing CDR will achieve minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) postoperatively-risk factors for failure to achieve MCID in PROMs following CDR have not been established., Purpose: To identify risk factors for failure to achieve MCID in Neck Disability Index (NDI, Visual Analog Scale (VAS) neck and arm following primary 1- or 2-level CDRs in the early and late postoperative periods., Study Design: Retrospective review of prospectively collected data., Patient Sample: Patients who had undergone primary 1- or 2-level CDR for the treatment of degenerative cervical pathology at a single institution with a minimum follow-up of 6 weeks between 2017 and 2022., Outcome Measures: Patient-reported outcomes: Neck disability index (NDI), Visual analog scale (VAS) neck and arm, MCID., Methods: Minimal clinically important difference achievement rates for NDI, VAS-Neck, and VAS-Arm within early (within 3 months) and late (6 months to 2 years) postoperative periods were assessed based on previously established thresholds. Multivariate logistic regressions were performed for each PROM and evaluation period, with failure to achieve MCID assigned as the outcome variable, to establish models to identify risk factors for failure to achieve MCID and predictors for achievement of MCID. Predictor variables included in the analyses featured demographics, comorbidities, diagnoses/symptoms, and perioperative characteristics., Results: A total of 154 patients met the inclusion criteria. The majority of patients achieved MCID for NDI, VAS-Neck, and VAS-Arm for both early and late postoperative periods-79% achieved MCID for at least one of the PROMs in the early postoperative period, while 80% achieved MCID for at least one of the PROMs in the late postoperative period. Predominant neck pain was identified as a risk factor for failure to achieve MCID for NDI in the early (OR: 3.13 [1.10-8.87], p-value: .032) and late (OR: 5.01 [1.31-19.12], p-value: .018) postoperative periods, and VAS-Arm for the late postoperative period (OR: 36.63 [3.78-354.56], p-value: .002). Myelopathy was identified as a risk factor for failure to achieve MCID for VAS-Neck in the early postoperative period (OR: 3.40 [1.08-10.66], p-value: .036). Anxiety was identified as a risk factor for failure to achieve MCID for VAS-Neck in the late postoperative period (OR: 6.51 [1.91-22.18], p-value: .003). CDR at levels C5C7 was identified as a risk factor for failure to achieve MCID in NDI for the late postoperative period (OR: 9.74 [1.43-66.34], p-value: .020)., Conclusions: Our study identified several risk factors for failure to achieve MCID in common PROMs following CDR including predominant neck pain, myelopathy, anxiety, and CDR at levels C5-C7. These findings may help inform the approach to counseling patients on outcomes of CDR as the evidence suggests that those with the risk factors above may not improve as reliably after CDR., Competing Interests: Declarations of Competing Interest One or more of the authors declare financial or professional relationships on ICMJE-TSJ disclosure forms., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Study Design: Retrospective cohort., Summary of Background Data: Although minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) are utilized to interpret Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), it is unclear whether there is a clearly better metric between the two and if not, which metric should be utilized when., Objective: To compare the characteristics of MCID and PASS when interpreting ODI after lumbar spine surgery., Methods: Patients who underwent primary minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion or decompression were included. The ODI and global rating change data at 1 year were analyzed. The global rating change was collapsed to a dichotomous outcome variable-(a) improved, (b) not improved The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of MCID and PASS were calculated for the overall cohort and separately for patients with minimal, moderate, and severe preoperative disability. Two groups with patients who achieved PASS but not MCID and patients who achieved MCID but not PASS were analyzed., Results: Two hundred twenty patients (mean age 62 y, 57% males) were included. PASS (86% vs. 69%) and MCID (88% vs. 63%) had significantly greater sensitivity in patients with moderate and severe preoperative disability, respectively. Nineteen percent of patients achieved PASS but not MCID and 10% of patients achieved MCID but not PASS, with the preoperative ODI being significantly greater in the latter. Most of these patients still reported improvement with no significant difference between the 2 groups (93% vs. 86%)., Conclusion: Significant postoperative clinical improvement is most effectively assessed by PASS in patients with minimal or moderate preoperative disability and by MCID in patients with severe preoperative disability. Adequate interpretation of ODI using the PASS and MCID metrics warrants individualized application as their utility is highly dependent on the degree of preoperative disability., Competing Interests: S.A.Q.: Royalties: Stryker K2M, Globus Medical, Inc.; Globus Medical, Inc.: HS2, LLC; Private Investments: Tissue Differentiation Intelligence; Consulting: Stryker K2M, Globus Medical, Inc.; Speaking and/or Teaching Arrangements: AMOpportunities, Globus Medical, Inc.; Board of Directors: Society of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery; Scientific Advisory Board/Other Office: International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery, Cervical Spine Research Society, Lumbar Spine Research Society, North American Spine Society, Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons, Simplify Medical, Inc., LifeLink.com Inc., Society of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery, Minimally Invasive Spine Study Group, Spinal Simplicity, LLC, Contemporary Spine Surgery, Annals of Translational Medicine. The remaining authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Study Design: Retrospective chart review., Objective: Identify demographic and sagittal alignment parameters that are independently associated with femoral nerve position at the L4-L5 disk space., Summary of Background Data: Iatrogenic femoral nerve or lumbar plexus injury during lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) can result in neurological complications. The LLIF "safe zone" is the anterior half to two third of the disk space. However, femoral nerve position varies and is inconsistently identifiable on magnetic resonance imaging. The safe zone is also narrowest at L4-L5., Methods: An analysis of patients with symptomatic lumbar spine pathology and magnetic resonance imaging with a visibly identifiable femoral nerve evaluated at a single large academic spine center from January 1, 2017, to January 8, 2020, was performed. Exclusion criteria were transitional anatomy, severe hip osteoarthritis, coronal deformity with cobb >10 degrees, > grade 1 spondylolisthesis at L4-L5 and anterior migration of the psoas.Standing and supine lumbar lordosis (LL) and its proximal (L1-L4) and distal (L4-S1) components were measured. Femoral nerve position on sagittal imaging was then measured as a percentage of the L4 inferior endplate. A stepwise multivariate linear regression of sagittal alignment and LL parameters was then performed. Data are written as estimate, 95% CI., Results: Mean patient age was 58.2±14.7 years, 25 (34.2%) were female and 26 (35.6%) had a grade 1 spondylolisthesis. Mean femoral nerve position was 26.6±10.3% from the posterior border of L4. Female sex (-6.6, -11.1 to -2.1) and supine proximal lumbar lordosis (0.4, 0.1-0.7) were independently associated with femoral nerve position., Conclusions: Patient sex and proximal LL can serve as early indicators of the size of the femoral nerve safe zone during a transpsoas LLIF approach at L4-L5., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Study Design: Retrospective review of prospectively collected data., Objective: To analyze the learning curves of three spine surgeons for robotic minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF)., Summary of Background Data: Although the learning curve for robotic MI-TLIF has been described, the current evidence is of low quality with most studies being single-surgeon series., Materials and Methods: Patients who underwent single-level MI-TLIF with three spine surgeons (years in practice: surgeon 1: 4, surgeon 2: 16, and surgeon 3: two) using a floor-mounted robot were included. Outcome measures were operative time, fluoroscopy time, intraoperative complications, screw revision, and patient-reported outcome measures. Each surgeon's cases were divided into successive groups of 10 patients and compared for differences. Linear regression and cumulative sum (CuSum) analyses were performed to analyze the trend and learning curve, respectively., Results: A total of 187 patients were included (surgeon 1: 45, surgeon 2: 122, and surgeon 3: 20). For surgeon 1, CuSum analysis showed a learning curve of 21 cases with the attainment of mastery at case 31. Linear regression plots showed negative slopes for operative and fluoroscopy time. Both learning phase and postlearning phase groups showed significant improvement in patient-reported outcome measures. For surgeon 2, CuSum analysis demonstrated no discernible learning curve. There was no significant difference between successive patient groups in either operative time or fluoroscopy time. For surgeon 3, CuSum analysis demonstrated no discernible learning curve. Even though the difference between successive patient groups was not significant, cases 11 to 20 had an average operative time of 26 minutes less than cases 1-10), suggesting an ongoing learning curve., Conclusions: Surgeons who are well-experienced can be expected to have no or minimal learning curve for robotic MI-TLIF. Early attendings are likely to have a learning curve of around 21 cases with the attainment of mastery at case 31. Learning curve does not seem to impact clinical outcomes after surgery., Level of Evidence: Level 3., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Study Design: Retrospective cohort., Objective: To compare navigation and robotics in terms of clinical outcomes after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF)., Summary of Background Data: Although robotics has been shown to have advantages like reduced radiation exposure, greater screw size, and slightly better accuracy over navigation, none of the studies has compared these two modalities in terms of clinical outcomes., Methods: Patients who underwent single-level MI-TLIF using robotics or navigation and had a minimum of 1-year follow-up were included. The robotics and navigation groups were compared for improvement in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), minimal clinically important difference, patient-acceptable symptom state, response on the global rating change scale, and screw-related complication and reoperation rates., Results: A total of 278 patients (143 robotics, 135 navigation) were included. There was no significant difference between the robotics and navigation groups in the baseline demographics, operative variables, and preoperative PROMs. Both groups showed significant improvement in PROMs at below six and six months or above, with no significant difference in the magnitude of improvement between the two groups. Most patients achieved minimal clinically important difference and patient-acceptable symptom state and reported feeling better on the global rating change scale, with no significant difference in the proportions between the robotics and navigation groups. The screw-related complication and reoperation rates also showed no significant difference between the two groups., Conclusions: Robotics did not seem to lead to significantly better clinical outcomes compared with navigation following MI-TLIF. Although the clinical outcomes may be similar, robotics offers the advantages of reduced radiation exposure, greater screw size, and slightly better accuracy over navigation. These advantages should be considered when determining the utility and cost-effectiveness of robotics in spine surgery. Larger multicenter prospective studies are required in the future to further investigate this subject., Competing Interests: The author reports no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Study Design: Retrospective chart review., Objective: This study aimed to examine postoperative radiculitis after isolated L5-S1 anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), determine which factors contribute to its development, and investigate the comparative outcomes of patients with versus without postoperative radiculitis., Summary of Background Data: Both standalone and traditionalALIF are common and safe lumbar spine fusion techniques. Although optimal safety and effectiveness are achieved through appropriate patient selection, postoperative radiculitis after L5-S1 ALIF is a potential complication that seems to be the least predictable in the absence of iatrogenic injury., Patients and Methods: All adult patients (18-80 yr) with preoperative radiculopathies who underwent L5-S1 ALIF by 9 board-certified spine surgeons at a single academic institution from January 2016 to December 2021 with a minimum of 3 months follow-up were included. Patient records were assessed for data on clinical characteristics and patient-reported outcome scores (patient-reported outcome measures). All patient records were evaluated to determine whether postoperative radiculitis developed. Radiographic measurements using x-rays were completed using all available pre and postoperative imaging. Multivariable logistic regressions were performed utilizing radiculitis as the dependent variable and various independent predictor variables., Results: One hundred forty patients were included, 48 (34%) patients developed postoperative radiculitis, with symptom onset and resolution occurring at 14.5 and 83 days, respectively. The two groups had no differences in preoperative or postoperative radiographic parameters. Multivariable regression showed 3 independent predictors of postoperative radiculitis: methylprednisolone use [OR: 6.032; (95% CI: 1.670-25.568)], increased implant height [OR: 1.509; (95% CI: 1.189-1.960)], and no posterior fixation [OR: 2.973; (95% CI: 1.353-0.806)]., Conclusions: Of the 34% of patients who developed postoperative radiculitis after L5-S1 ALIF, it resolved on average within 3 months of surgery. These findings may help reduce the risk of undue short-term morbidity after isolated L5-S1 ALIF by informing preoperative counseling and intraoperative decision-making., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Study Design: Retrospective cohort study., Objective: The purpose of this study was to assess trends in disparities in utilization of hospital outpatient departments (HOPDs) and ambulatory surgical centers (ASCs) for outpatient ACDF (OP-ACDF) between White, Black, Hispanic, and Asian/Pacific Islander patients from 2015 to 2018 in New York State., Summary of Background Data: Racial and ethnic disparities within the field of spine surgery have been thoroughly documented. To date, it remains unknown how these disparities have evolved in the outpatient setting alongside the rapid emergence of ASCs and whether restrictive patterns of access to these outpatient centers exist by race and ethnicity., Materials and Methods: We conducted a retrospective review from 2015 to 2018 using the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) New York State Ambulatory Database. Differences in utilization rates for OP-ACDF were assessed and trended over time by race and ethnicity for both HOPDs and freestanding ASCs. Poisson regression was used to evaluate the association between utilization rates for OP-ACDF and race/ethnicity., Results: Between 2015 and 2018, Black, Hispanic, and Asian patients were less likely to undergo OP-ACDF compared with White patients in New York State. However, the magnitude of these disparities lessened over time, as Black, Hispanic, and Asian patients had greater relative increases in utilization of HOPDs and ASCs for ACDF when compared with White patients ( Ptrend <0.001). The magnitude of the increase in freestanding ASC utilization was such that minority patients had higher ACDF utilization rates in freestanding ASCs by 2018 ( P <0.001)., Conclusions: We found evidence of improving racial disparities in the relative utilization of outpatient ACDF in New York State. The increase in access to outpatient ACDF appeared to be driven by an increasing number of patients undergoing ACDF in freestanding ASCs in large metropolitan areas. These improving disparities are encouraging and contrast previously documented inequalities in inpatient spine surgery., Level of Evidence: III., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background Context: Although some previous studies have analyzed predictors of nonimprovement, most of these have focused on demographic and clinical variables and have not accounted for radiological predictors. In addition, while several studies have examined the degree of improvement after decompression, there is less data on the rate of improvement., Purpose: To identify the risk factors and predictors (both radiological and nonradiological) for slower as well as nonachievement of minimal clinically important difference (MCID) after minimally invasive decompression., Design: Retrospective cohort., Patient Sample: Patients who underwent minimally invasive decompression for degenerative lumbar spine conditions and had a minimum of 1-year follow up were included. Patients with preoperative Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) <20 were excluded., Outcome Measure: MCID achievement in ODI (cut off 12.8)., Methods: Patients were stratified into two groups (achieved MCID, did not achieve MCID) at two timepoints (early ≤3 months, late ≥6 months). Nonradiological (age, gender, BMI, comorbidities, anxiety, depression, number of levels operated, preoperative ODI, preoperative back pain) and radiological (MRI - Schizas grading for stenosis, dural sac cross-sectional area, Pfirrmann grading for disc degeneration, psoas cross-sectional area and Goutallier grading, facet cyst/effusion; X-ray - spondylolisthesis, lumbar lordosis, spinopelvic parameters) variables were assessed with comparative analysis to identify risk factors and with multiple regression models to identify predictors for slower achievement of MCID (MCID not achieved by ≤3 months) and nonachievement of MCID (MCID not achieved at ≥6 months)., Results: A total of 338 patients were included. At ≤3 months, patients who did not achieve MCID had significantly lower preoperative ODI (40.1 vs 48.1, p<0.001) and worse psoas Goutallier grading (p=.048). At ≥6 months, patients who did not achieve MCID had significantly lower preoperative ODI (38 vs 47.5, p<.001), higher age (68 vs 63 years, p=.007), worse average L1-S1 Pfirrmann grading (3.5 vs 3.2, p=.035), and higher rate of pre-existing spondylolisthesis at the operated level (p=.047). When these and other probable risk factors were put into a regression model, low preoperative ODI (p=.002) and poor Goutallier grading (p=.042) at the early timepoint and low preoperative ODI (p<.001) at the late timepoint came out as independent predictors for MCID nonachievement., Conclusion: After minimally invasive decompression, low preoperative ODI and poor muscle health are risk factors and predictors for slower achievement of MCID. For nonachievement of MCID, low preoperative ODI, higher age, greater disc degeneration, and spondylolisthesis are risk factors and low preoperative ODI is the only independent predictor., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest One or more of the authors declare financial or professional relationships on ICMJE-TSJ disclosure forms., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The objective of this study was to assess the outcomes of patients with predominant back pain (pBP) undergoing minimally invasive decompression surgery compared with patients with nonpredominant back pain (npBP)., Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study. Patients were divided into two groups based on the presenting complaint: 1) pBP, defined as visual analog scale (VAS) back pain score > VAS leg pain score; and 2) npBP. Changes in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were compared at the early (< 6 months) and late (≥ 6 months) postoperative time points. Outcomes measures were: 1) PROMs (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI], VAS back and leg pain scores, 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey Physical Component Score [SF-12 PCS], and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function [PROMIS PF]), and 2) minimal clinically important difference (MCID) achievement rate and time. For the late MCID achievement point, a second analysis was conducted restricting VAS back and leg pain scores only to patients with preoperative scores ≥ 5., Results: Three hundred ninety patients were included (126 with pBP and 264 with npBP). There were no differences in patient demographics and operated levels. There were no differences in preoperative ODI, SF-12 PCS, and PROMIS PF scores. The pBP cohort had a significantly greater preoperative VAS back pain score than the npBP cohort, whereas the npBP cohort had a significantly greater preoperative VAS leg pain score than the pBP cohort. There were no differences in the absolute values or changes in ODI, VAS back pain, SF-12 PCS, and PROMIS PF scores at any time point. There was a significant difference in the early VAS leg pain scores (greater in npBP) that disappeared by the late postoperative time point. There was no difference in the MCID achievement rate in the ODI, SF-12 PCS, or PROMIS PF scores. By the late postoperative time point, 51.2% and 55.3% achieved an MCID on the ODI, 58.1% and 62.7% on the SF-12 PCS, 60% and 67.6% on the PROMIS PF, 81.1% and 73.2% on VAS back pain scores for those with preoperative scores ≥ 5, and 72% and 83.6% on VAS leg pain scores for those with preoperative scores ≥ 5 for the pBP and npBP cohorts, respectively. Additionally, there were no differences in time to MCID achievement for any PROMs., Conclusions: The pBP and npBP cohorts showed similar improvement in PROMs and MCID achievement rates. This result shows that minimally invasive laminectomy is equally effective for patients presenting with pBP or npBP.

Study Design: Retrospective review of prospectively collected data., Objective: To determine the Neck Disability Index (NDI) cut-off for achieving patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) at six months following degenerative cervical spine surgery., Summary of Background Data: An absolute score denoting PASS might be a better marker to assess clinical outcomes than a change score denoting minimal clinically important difference., Materials and Methods: Patients who underwent primary anterior cervical decompression and fusion, cervical disk replacement, or laminectomy were included. The outcome measure was NDI. The anchor used to assess PASS achievement at six months was the response on the Global Rating Change: "Compared with preoperative, you feel (1) much better, (2) slightly better, (3) same, (4) slightly worse, or (5) much worse." It was converted to a dichotomous outcome variable (acceptable=response of 1 or 2, unacceptable=response of 3, 4, or 5) for analyses. The overall cohort and subgroups based on age (65 yr and below, above 65 yr), sex, myelopathy, and preoperative NDI (≤40, >40) were analyzed for the proportion of patients achieving PASS and the NDI cut-off using receiver operator curve., Results: Seventy-five patients (42 anterior cervical decompression and fusion, 23 cervical disc replacement, 10 laminectomy) were included. 79% of patients achieved PASS. Males, patients with age 65 years and below, preoperative NDI ≤40, and absence of myelopathy were more likely to achieve PASS. The receiver operator curve analysis revealed an Oswestry Disability Index cut-off of 21 to achieve PASS (area under the curve, AUC: 0.829, sensitivity: 81%, specificity: 80%). The subgroup analyses based on age, sex, myelopathy, and preoperative NDI revealed AUCs >0.7 and NDI threshold values consistent between 17 and 23., Conclusions: With an AUC of 0.829, NDI showed an excellent discriminative ability. Patients with NDI ≤21 are expected to achieve PASS following degenerative cervical spine surgery., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Study Design/setting: Systematic review., Objective: The primary purpose was to propose patient selection criteria and perioperative best practices that can serve as a starting point for an ambulatory lumbar fusion program. The secondary purpose was to review patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after ambulatory lumbar fusion., Summary of Background: As healthcare costs rise, there is an increasing emphasis on cost saving strategies (i.e. outpatient/ambulatory surgeries). Lumbar fusion procedures remain a largely inpatient surgery. Early studies have shown that fusion procedures can be safely preformed in an outpatient setting but no review has summarized these findings and best practices., Materials and Methods: This study was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. PubMed/MEDLINE, The Cochrane Library, and Embase were searched. The following data were collected: (1) study design; (2) number of participants; (3) patient population; (4) procedure types; (5) procedure setting; (6) inclusion criteria; (7) protocols; (8) adverse events; (9) PROs; and (10) associations between patient/surgical factors, setting, and outcomes., Results: The search yielded 20 publications. The following selection criteria for ambulatory lumbar fusion were identified: age below 70, minimal comorbidities, low/normal body mass index, no tobacco use, and no opioid use. The perioperative protocol can include a multimodal analgesic regimen. The patient should be observed for at least three hours after surgery. The patient should not be discharged without an alertness check and a neurological examination. Patients experienced significant improvements in PROs after ambulatory lumbar fusion; similarly, when compared to an inpatient group, ambulatory lumbar fusion patients experienced a comparable or superior improvement in PROs., Conclusion: There are two critical issues surrounding ambulatory lumbar fusion: (1) Who is the ideal patient, and (2) What needs to be done to enable expedited discharge? We believe this review will provide a foundation to assist surgeons in making decisions regarding the performance of lumbar fusion on an ambulatory basis., Level of Evidence: Level III., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Study Design: Retrospective review of prospectively collected data., Objective: To determine the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) cutoff for achieving Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) at one year following minimally invasive lumbar spine surgery., Summary of Background Data: An absolute score denoting PASS, rather than a change score denoting minimal clinically important difference (MCID), might be a better metric to assess clinical outcomes., Materials and Methods: Patients who underwent primary minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion or decompression were included. The outcome measure was ODI. The anchor question was the Global Rating Change: "Compared with preoperative, you feel (1) much better, (2) slightly better, (3) same, (4) slightly worse, or (5) much worse." For analysis, it was collapsed to a dichotomous outcome variable (acceptable=response of 1 or 2, unacceptable=response of 3, 4, or 5). Proportion of patients achieving PASS and the ODI cutoff using receiver operating characteristic curve analyses were assessed for the overall cohort as well as subgroups based on age, sex, type of surgery, and preoperative ODI. Differences between the PASS and MCID metrics were analyzed., Results: A total of 137 patients were included. In all, 87% of patients achieved PASS. Patients less than or equal to 65 years and those undergoing fusion were more likely to achieve PASS. The receiver operating characteristic curve analysis revealed an ODI cutoff of 25.2 to achieve PASS (area under the curve: 0.872, sensitivity: 82%, specificity: 83%). The subgroup analyses based on age, sex, and preoperative ODI revealed area under the curve >0.8 and ODI threshold values consistent between 25.2 and 25.5 (except 28.4 in patients with preoperative ODI >40). PASS was found to have significantly higher sensitivity compared with MCID (82% vs. 69%, P =0.01)., Conclusions: Patients with ODI <25 are expected to achieve PASS, irrespective of age, sex, and preoperative disability. PASS was found to have significantly higher sensitivity than MCID., Level of Evidence: 3., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background Context: Surgical counseling enables shared decision-making (SDM) by improving patients' understanding., Purpose: To provide answers to frequently asked questions (FAQs) in minimally invasive lumbar spine surgery., Study Design: Retrospective review of prospectively collected data., Patient Sample: Patients who underwent primary tubular minimally invasive lumbar spine surgery in form of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF), decompression alone, or microdiscectomy and had a minimum of 1-year follow-up., Outcome Measures: (1) Surgical (radiation exposure and intraoperative complications) (2)Immediate postoperative (length of stay [LOS] and complications) (3) Clinical outcomes (Visual Analog Scale- back and leg, VAS; Oswestry Disability Index, ODI; 12-Item Short Form Survey Physical Component Score, SF-12 PCS; Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function, PROMIS PF; Global Rating Change, GRC; return to activities; complications/reoperations) METHODS: The outcome measures were analyzed to provide answers to ten FAQs that were compiled based on the authors' experience and a review of literature. Changes in VAS back, VAS leg, ODI, and SF-12 PCS from preoperative values to the early (<6 months) and late (>6 months) postoperative time points were analyzed with Wilcoxon Signed Rank Tests. % of patients achieving minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for these patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) at the two time points was evaluated. Changes in PROs from preoperative values too early (<6 months) and late (≥6 months) postoperative time points were analyzed within each of the three groups. Percentage of patients achieving MCID was also evaluated., Results: Three hundred sixty-six patients (104 TLIF, 147 decompression, 115 microdiscectomy) were included. The following FAQs were answered: (1) Will my back pain improve? Most patients report improvement by >50%. About 60% of TLIF, decompression, and microdiscectomy patients achieved MCID at ≥6 months. (2) Will my leg pain improve? Most patients report improvement by >50%. 56% of TLIF, 67% of decompression, and 70% of microdiscectomy patients achieved MCID at ≥6 months. (3) Will my activity level improve? Most patients report significant improvement. Sixty-six percent of TLIF, 55% of decompression, and 75% of microdiscectomy patients achieved MCID for SF-12 PCS. (4) Is there a chance I will get worse? Six percent after TLIF, 14% after decompression, and 5% after microdiscectomy. (5) Will I receive a significant amount of radiation? The radiation exposure is likely to be acceptable and nearly insignificant in terms of radiation-related risks. (6) What is the likelihood that I will have a complication? 17.3% (15.4% minor, 1.9% major) for TLIF, 10% (9.3% minor and 0.7% major) for decompression, and 1.7% (all minor) for microdiscectomy (7) Will I need another surgery? Six percent after TLIF, 16.3% after decompression, 13% after microdiscectomy. (8) How long will I stay in the hospital? Most patients get discharged on postoperative day one after TLIF and on the same day after decompression and microdiscectomy. (9) When will I be able to return to work? >80% of patients return to work (average: 25 days after TLIF, 14 days after decompression, 11 days after microdiscectomy). (10) Will I be able to drive again? >90% of patients return to driving (average: 22 days after TLIF, 11 days after decompression, 14 days after microdiscectomy)., Conclusions: These concise answers to the FAQs in minimally invasive lumbar spine surgery can be used by physicians as a reference to enable patient education., Competing Interests: Declarations of Competing Interests One or more of the authors declare financial or professional relationships on ICMJE-NASSJ disclosure forms., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The goal of this study was to assess the outcomes of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) in patients ≥ 70 years old and compare them to younger age groups., Methods: This was a retrospective study of data that were collected prospectively. Patients who underwent primary single-level MI-TLIF were included and divided into 3 groups: age < 60, 60-69, and ≥ 70 years. The outcome measures were as follows: 1) patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) (i.e., visual analog scale [VAS] for back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index [ODI], 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey Physical Component Summary [SF-12 PCS]); 2) minimum clinically important difference (MCID) achievement; 3) return to activities; 4) opioid discontinuation; 5) fusion rates; and 6) complications/reoperations., Results: A total of 147 patients (age < 60 years, 62; 60-69 years, 47; ≥ 70 years, 38) were included. All the groups showed significant improvements in all PROMs at the early (< 6 months) and late (≥ 6 months) time points and there was no significant difference between the groups. Although MCID achievement rates for VAS leg and ODI were similar, they were lower in the ≥ 70-year-old patient group for VAS back and SF-12 PCS. Although the time to MCID achievement for ODI and SF-12 PCS was similar, it was greater in the ≥ 70-year-old patient group for VAS back and leg. There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of return to activities, opioid discontinuation, fusion rates, and complication/reoperation rates., Conclusions: Although patients > 70 years of age may be less likely and/or take longer to achieve MCID compared to their younger counterparts, they show an overall significant improvement in PROMs, a similar likelihood of returning to activities and discontinuing opioids, and comparable fusion and complication/reoperation rates following MI-TLIF.

Study Design: Prospective randomized placebo controlled animal trial., Objective: Determine the effect of daily subcutaneous abaloparatide injection on the intervertebral fusion rate in rabbits undergoing posterolateral fusion., Study of Background Data: Despite the wide utilization of spine fusion, pseudarthrosis remains prevalent, and results in increased morbidity. Abaloparatide is a novel analog of parathyroid hormone-related peptide (1-34) and has shown efficacy in a rat posterolateral spine fusion model to increase fusion rates. The effect of abaloparatide on the fusion rate in a larger animal model remains unknown., Materials and Methods: A total of 24 skeletally mature New Zealand White male rabbits underwent bilateral posterolateral spine fusion. Following surgery, the rabbits were randomized to receive either saline as control or abaloparatide subcutaneous injection daily. Specimens underwent manual assessment of fusion, radiographic analysis with both x-ray and high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography, and biomechanical assessment., Results: Rabbits that received abaloparatide had a 100% (10/10) fusion rate compared with 45% (5/11) for controls ( P <0.02) as assessed by manual palpation. Radiographic analysis determined an overall mean fusion score of 4.17±1.03 in the abaloparatide group versus 3.39±1.21 for controls ( P <0.001). The abaloparatide group also had a greater volume of bone formed with a bone volume of 1209±543 mm 3 compared with 551±152 mm 3 ( P <0.001) for controls. The abaloparatide group had significantly greater trabecular bone volume fraction and trabecular thickness and lower specific bone surface and connectivity density in the adjacent levels when compared with controls. Abaloparatide treatment did not impact trabecular number or separation. There were no differences in biomechanical testing in flexion, extension, or lateral bending ( P >0.05) between groups., Conclusions: Abaloparatide significantly increased the fusion rate in a rabbit posterolateral fusion model as assessed by manual palpation. In addition, there were marked increases in the radiographic evaluation of fusion., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Study Design: Single-center, multisurgeon, retrospective review., Objective: To evaluate the timing of return to commonly performed activities following minimally invasive spine surgery. Identify preoperative factors associated with these outcomes., Summary of Background Data: Studies have reported return to activities with open techniques, but the precise timing of when patients return to these activities after minimally invasive surgery remains uncertain., Materials and Methods: Patients who underwent either minimally invasive lumbar laminectomy (MI-L) or minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) were included. Patient-reported outcome measures, return to drive, return to work, and discontinuation of opioids data were reviewed. Regression was conducted to identify factors associated with return to driving by 15 days, return to work by 30 days, and for discontinuing opioids by 15 days. A composite group analysis was also performed for patients who returned to all three activities by 30 days., Results: In total, 123 MI-L patients and 107 MI-TLIF patients were included. Overall, 88.8% of MI-L patients and 96.4% of MI-TLIF patients returned to driving in 11 and 18.5 days, respectively. In all, 91.9% of MI-L patients and 85.7% of MI-TLIF patients returned to work in 14 and 25 days. In all, 88.7% of MI-L patients and 92.6% of MI-TLIF patients discontinued opioids in a median of seven and 11 days. Overall, 96.2% of MI-L patients and 100% of MI-TLIF patients returned to all three activities, with a median of 27 and 31 days, respectively. Male sex [odds ratio (OR)=3.57] and preoperative 12-Item Short Form Physical Component Score (OR=1.08) are associated with return to driving by 15 days. Male sex (OR=3.23) and preoperative 12-Item Short Form Physical Component Score (OR=1.07) are associated with return to work by 30 days. Preoperative Visual Analog Scale back was associated with decreased odds of discontinuing opioids by 15 days (OR=0.84)., Conclusion: Most patients return to activity following MI-L and MI-TLIF. These findings serve as an important compass for preoperative counseling., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) is one of the most common pathologies spine surgeons treat. While a number of potential factors have been identified, there is no current consensus on which variables most impact the decision to fuse vs. decompress alone in this population., Purpose: The purpose of this study was to describe current DS treatment practices and identify both the radiographic and clinical factors leading to the decision to fuse segments for one level DS., Study Design/setting: Descriptive cross-sectional survey., Patient Sample: Surveys were administered to members of Lumbar Spine Research Society and Society of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery., Outcome Measures: Surgeon demographics and treatment practices were reported. Radiographic and clinical parameters were ranked by each surgeon with regards to their importance., Methods: The primary analysis was limited to completed surveys. Baseline characteristics were summarized. Clinical and radiographic parameters were ranked and compared. Ranking of each clinical and radiographic parameters was reported using best and worst rank, mean rank position, and percentiles. The most important, top 3 most important, and top 5 most important parameters were ordered given each parameter's ranking frequency., Results: 381 surveys were returned completed. With regards to fusion vs. decompression, 19.9% fuse all cases, 39.1% fuse > 75%, 17.8% fuse 50%-75%, and 23.2% fuse <25%. The most common decompressive technique was a partial laminotomy (51.4%), followed by full laminectomy (28.9%). 82.2% of respondents instrument all fusion cases. Instability (93.2%), spondylolisthesis grade (59.8%), and laterolisthesis (37.3%) were the most common radiographic factors impacting the decision to fuse. With regards to the clinical factors leading to fusion, mechanical low back pain (83.2%), activity level (58.3%), and neurogenic claudication (42.8%) were the top 3 clinical parameters., Conclusions: There is little consensus on the treatment of DS, with society members showing substantial variation in treatment patterns with the majority utilizing fusion for treatment. The most common radiographic parameters impacting treatment are instability, spondylolisthesis grade, and laterolisthesis while mechanical low back pain, activity level, and neurogenic claudication are the most common clinical parameters., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background Context: Poor muscle health has been implicated as a source of back pain among patients with lumbar spine pathology. Recently, a novel magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based lumbar muscle health grade was shown to correlate with health-related quality of life scores. However, the impact of muscle health on postoperative functional outcomes following spine surgery remains to be investigated., Purpose: To determine whether muscle health grade measured by preoperative psoas and paralumbar muscle cross-sectional areas impact the achievement of minimal clinically important difference (MCID) following lumbar microdiscectomy., Study Design/setting: Retrospective cohort study., Patient Sample: Consecutive patients who underwent 1-level lumbar microdiscectomy in a single institution between 2017 and 2021., Outcome Measures: Rate of MCID achievement, time to MCID achievement, PROMs including Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), visual analog scale for back pain (VAS back), VAS leg, Short Form 12 Physical Component Summary (SF-12 PCS), SF-12 Mental Component Summary (SF-12 MCS), and Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function (PROMIS PF)., Methods: Two previously validated methods for muscle health grading were applied. Axial T2 MRI were analyzed for muscle measurements. The psoas-based method utilized the normalized total psoas area (NTPA), which is the psoas cross-sectional area divided by the square of patient height (mm 2 /m 2 ). Patients were divided into low and high NTPA groups based on sex-specific lowest quartile NTPA thresholds. The paralumbar-based method incorporated the paralumbar cross-sectional area normalized by body mass index (PL-CSA/BMI) and Goutallier classification. Score of 1 was added for either PL-CSA/BMI >130 or Goutallier class of ≤2. "Good" muscle health was defined as score of 2, and "poor" muscle health was defined as score of 0 to 1. Prospectively collected PROMs were analyzed at 2-week, 6-week, 3-month, 6-month, 1-year, and 2-year postoperative timepoints. The rate of and time to MCID achievement were compared among the cohorts. Bivariate analyses were performed to assess for correlations between psoas/paralumbar cross-sectional areas and change in PROM scores from baseline., Results: The total cohort included 163 patients with minimum follow-up of 6 months and mean follow-up of 16.5 months. 40 patients (24.5%) were categorized into the low NTPA group, and 55 patients (33.7%) were categorized into the poor paralumbar muscle group. Low NTPA was associated with older age, lower BMI, and greater frequencies of Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) ≥1. Poor paralumbar muscle health was associated with older age, female sex, higher BMI, and CCI ≥1. There were no differences in rates of MCID achievement for any PROMs between low versus high NTPA groups or between poor versus good paralumbar groups. Low NTPA was associated with longer time to MCID achievement for ODI, VAS back, VAS leg, and SF-12 MCS. Poor paralumbar muscle health was associated with longer time to MCID achievement for VAS back, VAS leg, and SF-12 PCS. NTPA negatively correlated with change in VAS back (6-week, 12-week) and VAS leg (6-month). PL-CSA/BMI positively correlated with change in PROMIS-PF at 3 months follow-up., Conclusions: Among patients undergoing lumbar microdiscectomy, patients with worse muscle health grades achieved MCID at similar rates but required longer time to achieve MCID. Lower NTPA was weakly correlated with larger improvements in pain scores. PL-CSA/BMI positively correlated with change in PROMIS-PF. Our findings suggest that with regards to functional outcomes, patients with worse muscle health may take longer to recuperate postoperatively compared to those with better muscle health., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors report no conflicts of interest relevant to the topic of this study., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Study Design: Retrospective cohort., Objective: To compare robotics and navigation for minimally invasive elective lumbar fusion in terms of radiation exposure and time demand., Summary of Background Data: Although various studies have been conducted to demonstrate the benefits of both navigation and robotics over fluoroscopy in terms of radiation exposure, literature is lacking in studies comparing robotics versus navigation., Materials and Methods: Patients who underwent elective one-level or two-level minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) by a single surgeon using navigation (Stryker SpineMask) or robotics (ExcelsiusGPS) were included (navigation 2017-2019, robotics 2019-2021, resulting in prospective cohorts of consecutive patients for each modality). All surgeries had the intraoperative computed tomography workflow. The two cohorts were compared for radiation exposure [fluoroscopy time and radiation dose: image capture, surgical procedure, and overall) and time demand (time for setup and image capture, operative time, and total operating room (OR) time]., Results: A total of 244 patients (robotics 111, navigation 133) were included. The two cohorts were similar in terms of baseline demographics, primary/revision surgeries, and fusion levels. For one-level TLIF, total fluoroscopy time, total radiation dose, and % of radiation for surgical procedure were significantly less with robotics compared with navigation (20 vs. 25 s, P <0.001; 38 vs. 42 mGy, P =0.05; 58% vs. 65%, P =0.021). Although time for setup and image capture was significantly less with robotics (22 vs. 25 min, P <0.001) and operative time was significantly greater with robotics (103 vs. 93 min, P <0.001), there was no significant difference in the total OR time (145 vs. 141 min, P =0.25). Similar findings were seen for two-level TLIF as well., Conclusion: Robotics for minimally invasive TLIF, compared with navigation, leads to a significant reduction in radiation exposure both to the surgeon and patient, with no significant difference in the total OR time., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background Context: Although anterior cervical discectomy and fusion is believed to positively impact a patient's radicular symptoms as well as axial neck pain, the outcomes of cervical disc replacement (CDR) with regards to neck pain specifically have not been established., Purpose: Primary: to assess clinical improvement following CDR in patients with neck pain greater than arm pain. Secondary: to compare the clinical outcomes between patients undergoing CDR for predominant neck pain (pNP), predominant arm pain (pAP), and equal neck and arm pain (ENAP)., Study Design: Retrospective review of prospectively collected data., Patient Sample: Patients who had undergone one- or two-level CDR for the treatment of degenerative cervical pathology and had a minimum of 6-month follow-up were included and stratified into three cohorts based on their predominant location of pain: pNP, pAP, and ENAP., Outcome Measures: Patient-reported outcomes: Neck Disability Index (NDI), Visual Analog Scale (VAS) neck and arm, Short Form 12-Item Physical Health Score (SF12-PHS), Short Form 12-Item Mental Health Score (SF12-MHS), minimal clinically important difference (MCID)., Methods: Changes in Patient-reported outcomes from preoperative values to early (<6 months) and late (≥6 months) postoperative timepoints were analyzed within each of the three groups. The percentage of patients achieving MCID was also evaluated., Results: One hundred twenty-five patients (52 pNP, 30 pAP, 43 ENAP) were included. The pNP cohort demonstrated significant improvements in early and late NDI and VAS-Neck, early SF-12 MCS, and late SF-12 PCS. The pAP and ENAP cohorts demonstrated significant improvements in all PROMs, including NDI, VAS-Neck, VAS-Arm, SF-12 PCS, and SF-12 MCS, at both the early and late timepoints. No statistically significant differences were found in the MCID achievement rates for NDI, VAS-Neck, SF-12 PCS, and SF-12 MCS at the late timepoint amongst the three groups., Conclusions: CDR leads to comparable improvement in neck pain and disability in patients presenting with neck pain greater than arm pain and meeting specific clinical and radiographic criteria., Competing Interests: Declarations of competing interests The authors report no conflicts of interest relevant to the topic of this study., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Study Design: Retrospective review of prospectively collected data., Objective: To analyze the postoperative factors that led delayed discharge in patients who would have been eligible for ambulatory lumbar fusion (ALF)., Summary of Background Data: Assessing postoperative inefficiencies is vital to increase the feasibility of ALF., Materials and Methods: Patients who underwent single-level minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and would have met the eligibility criteria for ALF were included. Length of stay (LOS); time in postanesthesia recovery unit (PACU); alertness and neurological examination, and pain scores at three and six hours; type of analgesia; time to physical therapy (PT) visit; reasons for PT nonclearance; time to per-oral (PO) intake; time to voiding; time to readiness for discharge were assessed. Time taken to meet each discharge criterion was calculated. Multiple regression analyses were performed to study the effect of variables on postoperative parameters influencing discharge., Results: Of 71 patients, 4% were discharged on the same day and 69% on postoperative day 1. PT clearance was the last-met discharge criterion in 93%. Sixty-six percent did not get PT evaluation on the day of surgery. Seventy-six percent required intravenous opioids and <60% had adequate pain control. Twenty-six percent had orthostatic intolerance. The median postoperative LOS was 26.9 hours, time in PACU was 4.2 hours, time to PO intake was 6.5 hours, time to first void was 6.3 hours, time to first PT visit was 17.7 hours, time to PT clearance was 21.8 hours, and time to discharge readiness was 21.9 hours. Regression analysis showed that time to PT clearance, time to PO intake, time to voiding, time in PACU, and pain score at three hours had a significant effect on LOS., Conclusions: Unavailability of PT, surgery after 1  pm , orthostatic intolerance, inadequate pain control, prolonged PACU stay, and long feeding and voiding times were identified as modifiable factors preventing same-day discharge., Level of Evidence: 4., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: Disclosure: The Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest form is provided with the online version of the article (http://links.lww.com/JBJS/H8).

Study Design: This was a retrospective review., Objective: The objective of this study was to describe our technique and evaluate the time demand, radiation exposure, and outcomes of minimally invasive posterior cervical laminoforaminotomy (MI-PCLF) using skin-anchored intraoperative navigation (ION)., Background: Although bone-anchored trackers are most commonly used for ION, a novel technique utilizing noninvasive skin-anchored trackers has recently been described for lumbar surgery and has shown favorable results. There are currently no reports on the use of this technology for cervical surgery., Methods: Time demand, radiation exposure, and perioperative outcomes of MI-PCLF using skin-anchored ION were evaluated., Results: Twenty-one patients with 36 operative levels were included. Time for ION setup and operative time were a median of 34 and 62 minutes, respectively. Median radiation to the patient was 2.5 mGy from 10 seconds of fluoroscopy time. Radiation exposure to operating room personnel was negligible because they are behind a protective lead shield during ION image acquisition. There were no intraoperative complications or wrong-level surgeries. One patient required a repeat ION spin, and in 2 patients, ION was abandoned and standard fluoroscopy was used., Conclusions: Skin-anchored ION for MI-PCLF is feasible, safe, and accurate. It results in short operative times, minimal complications, low radiation to the patient, and negligible radiation to operating room personnel., Competing Interests: S.I. received research support from Innovasis; served on the scientific advisory board/other office at Healthgrades; received speaker’s fees from Globus Medical Inc. S.M. served as consultant in Medicrea, Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA Inc., NuVasive Inc., Stryker, Titan Spine, Zimmer Biomet. T.A.: served as consultant in NuVasive Inc.; received royalties from DePuy Synthes Spine, Elsevier Inc., JP Medical Publishers, Springer, Thieme Medical Publishers, Zimmer Biomet; served on the scientific advisory board/other office at American Orthopaedic Association, Back Story LLC, Scoliosis Research Society; received ownership interest from Augmedics, Bonovo Orthopedics Inc., CytoDyn Inc., Innovative Surgical Designs Inc., InVivo Therapeutics, Morphogenesis, Paradigm Spine LLC, Physician Recommended Nutriceuticals, Precision Orthopedics, Pulse Equity, Spinicity, Strathspey Crown, Surg.IO LLC; served in the editorial board at Spine Universe. S.A.Q. served as consultant in Paradigm Spine, Globus Medical Inc., Stryker K2M; received royalties from Globus Medical Inc., Stryker K2M; received ownership interest from Avaz Surgical, Vital 5 (past relationship); served on the scientific advisory board/other office at Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons, Cervical Spine Research, Contemporary Spine Surgery, Healthgrades, International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery, LifeLink.com Inc., Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery Group, Minimally Invasive Spine Study Group, North American Spine Society, Simplify Medical Inc., Society of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery, Spinal Simplicity, LLC; served in the editorial board at Annals of Translational Medicine, Global Spine Journal, Journal of American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, Spine, The Spine Journal; received honoraria from AMOpportunities, RTI Surgical Inc.; received speaker’s fees from Globus Medical Inc. The remaining authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Study Design: Description of surgical technique and retrospective review., Objective: To describe a novel surgical technique for multilevel lumbar fusion and describe early clinical results., Summary of Background Data: Patients with multilevel lumbar spinal stenosis and adult degenerative scoliosis often require multilevel interbody placement to achieve indirect decompression and lordosis. We describe a case series of patients treated with simultaneous lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) and anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) at L5-S1., Methods: We retrospectively reviewed a consecutive series of patients treated for multilevel lumbar spinal stenosis with simultaneous ALIF and LLIF with at least 3-month follow-up. All patients received supplemental percutaneous bilateral pedicle screw placement as well. We measured on preoperative radiographs their lumbar lordosis, pelvic incidence, and L5-S1 lordosis. Intraoperative factors such as operative time, estimated blood loss, fluids provided, number of levels fused, and whether a trainee was present during the procedure were all recorded., Results: There were 15 patients included within our case series (69.5, 4 F). There were no reported intraoperative vascular or neurological complications in 15 cases. The operative time for the cases ranged from 2.7 to 8.4 hours (average=5.2±1.9 h). The average lordosis gained at L5-S1 was 8.6±3.0 degrees and the average lumbar lordosis gained was 14.7±6.4 degrees. The average PI-LL mismatch went from 22.4±13.3 degrees preoperative to 7.8±10.2 degrees postoperative. One patient had a postoperative complication of a sacral fracture requiring placement of a pelvic screw for a L2-pelvis fusion. There were 8 patients with 4+ levels of fusion. For this cohort of patients, the average lumbar lordosis gained was 16.0±7.5 degrees and the average PI-LL mismatch went from 24.7±16.3 degrees preoperative to 8.8±12.9 degrees postoperative. For the patients with 4+ levels of fusion, the average operative time was 5.9±1.8 hours., Conclusions: We have described our early positive results with simultaneous LLIF/ALIF surgery for treatment of lumbar degenerative conditions., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) is used to treat multiple conditions, including spondylolisthesis, degenerative disc disorders, adjacent segment disease, and degenerative scoliosis. Although many advocate for posterior fixation with LLIF, stand-alone LLIF is increasingly being performed. Yet the fusion rate for stand-alone LLIF is unknown., Purpose: Determine the fusion rate for stand-alone LLIF., Study Design: Systematic review., Methods: We queried Cochrane, EMBASE, and MEDLINE for literature on stand-alone LLIF fusion rate with a publication cutoff of April 2020. LLIF surgery was considered stand-alone when not paired with supplemental posterior fixation. Cohort fusion rate differences were calculated and tested for significance (p<0.05). All reported means were pooled., Results: A total of 2,735 publications were assessed. Twenty-two studies met inclusion criteria, including 736 patients and 1,103 vertebral levels. Mean age was 61.7 years with BMI 26.5 kg/m 2 . Mean fusion rate was 85.6% (range, 53.0%-100.0%), which did not differ significantly by number of levels fused (1-level, 2-level, and ≥3-level). Use of rhBMP-2 was reported in 39.3% of subjects, with no difference in fusion rates between studies using rhBMP-2 (87.7%) and those in which rhBMP-2 was not used (83.9%, odds ratio=1.37, p=0.448). Fusion rate did not differ with the addition of a lateral plate, or by underlying diagnosis. All-complication rate was 42.2% and mean reoperation rate was 11.1%, with 2.3% reoperation due to pseudarthrosis. Of the studies comparing stand-alone to circumferential fusion, pooled fusion rate was found to be 80.4% versus 91.0% (p=0.637)., Conclusions: Stand-alone LLIF yields high fusion rates overall. The wide range of reported fusion rates and lower fusion rates in studies involving subsequent surgical reoperation highlights the importance of proper training in this technique and employing a rigorous algorithm when indicating patients for stand-alone LLIF. Future research should focus on examining risk factors and patient-reported outcomes in stand-alone LLIF., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background/context: Although decompression without fusion is a reasonable surgical treatment option for some patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) secondary to spondylolisthesis, some of these patients will require secondary surgery for subsequent fusion. Long-term outcome and need for subsequent fusion in patients treated with decompression alone in the setting of lumbar spondylolisthesis remains controversial., Purpose: The aim of this study was to examine the rate, timing, and risk factors of subsequent fusion for patients after decompression alone for LSS with spondylolisthesis., Study Design/setting: A retrospective cohort study., Patient Sample: Patients who had LSS with spondylolisthesis and underwent decompression alone at 1 or 2 levels as a primary lumbar surgery with more than 5 year follow-up., Outcome Measures: The rate, timing, and risk factors for subsequent fusion., Methods: Subjects were extracted from both public and private insurance resources in a nationwide insurer database. Risk factors for subsequent fusion were evaluated by multivariate cox proportion-hazard regression controlling for age, gender, comorbidities and the presence or absence of claudication., Results: Five thousand eight hundred and seventy-five patients in the public insurance population (PI population) and 1,456 patients in the private insurance population (PrI population) were included in this study. The rates of patients who needed subsequent fusion were 1.9% at 1 year, 3.5% at 2 years, and 6.7% at 5 years in the PI population, whereas they were 4.3% at 1 year, 8.9% at 2 years, 14.6% at 5 years in the PrI population. The time to subsequent fusion was 730 (365-1234) days in the PI population and 588 (300-998) days in the PrI population. Age less than 70 years, presence of neurogenic claudication and rheumatoid arthritis (RA)/collagen vascular diseases (CVD) were independent risk factors for subsequent fusion in both populations., Conclusions: Decompression surgery alone can demonstrate good outcomes in some patients with LSS with spondylolisthesis. It is important for surgeons to recognize, however, that patient age less than 70 years, symptomatic neurogenic claudication, and presence of RA and/or CVD are significant independent factors associated with greater likelihood of needing secondary fusion surgery., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: In an effort to prevent loss of segmental lordosis (SL) with minimally invasive interbody fusions, manufacturers have increased the amount of lordosis that is built into interbody cages. However, the relationship between cage lordotic angle and actual SL achieved intraoperatively remains unclear. The purpose of this study was to determine if the lordotic angle manufactured into an interbody cage impacts the change in SL during minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) done for degenerative pathology., Methods: The authors performed a retrospective review of a single-surgeon database of adult patients who underwent primary LIF between April 2017 and December 2018. Procedures were performed for 1-2-level lumbar degenerative disease using contemporary MIS techniques, including transforaminal LIF (TLIF), lateral LIF (LLIF), and anterior LIF (ALIF). Surgical levels were classified on lateral radiographs based on the cage lordotic angle (6°-8°, 10°-12°, and 15°-20°) and the position of the cage in the disc space (anterior vs posterior). Change in SL was the primary outcome of interest. Subgroup analyses of the cage lordotic angle within each surgical approach were also conducted., Results: A total of 116 surgical levels in 98 patients were included. Surgical approaches included TLIF (56.1%), LLIF (32.7%), and ALIF (11.2%). There were no differences in SL gained by cage lordotic angle (2.7° SL gain with 6°-8° cages, 1.6° with 10°-12° cages, and 3.4° with 15°-20° cages, p = 0.581). Subgroup analysis of LLIF showed increased SL with 15° cages only (p = 0.002). The change in SL was highest after ALIF (average increase 9.8° in SL vs 1.8° in TLIF vs 1.8° in LLIF, p < 0.001). Anterior position of the cage in the disc space was also associated with a significantly greater gain in SL (4.2° vs -0.3°, p = 0.001), and was the only factor independently correlated with SL gain (p = 0.016)., Conclusions: Compared with cage lordotic angle, cage position and approach play larger roles in the generation of SL in 1-2-level MIS for lumbar degenerative disease.

Study Design: This was a systematic review., Objective: The objective of this study was to review radiographic, clinical, and surgical outcomes of expandable interbody device implantation following lumbar fusion., Summary of Background Data: Few studies have evaluated postsurgical outcomes of expandable implants following lumbar interbody fusion., Methods: A systematic review was performed to identify studies investigating expandable intervertebral body devices in lumbar fusion. Radiographic parameters, fusion assessments, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), complications, and revision data were recorded. A comparison of expandable and static devices was performed using a meta-analysis., Results: Eleven articles were included. Postoperative improvements for each radiographic parameters for expandable versus static device implantation ranged from: lumbar lordosis, +2.0 to +5.0 degrees (expandable) versus +1.0 to +4.4 degrees (static); segmental lordosis, +1.0 to +5.2 degrees (expandable) versus+1.1 to +2.3 degrees (static); disk height, +0.82 to +4.8 mm (expandable) versus +0.26 to +6.9 mm (static); foraminal height, +0.13 to +2.8 mm (expandable) versus and +0.05 to +3.0 mm (static). Fusion rates ranged from 72.1% at 6 months to 100% at terminal follow-up. Preoperative to final follow-up improvement for the various PROs assessed were: Oswestry Disability Index, -15.4 to -56.3 (expandable) versus -13.6 to -26.3 (static); Visual Analog Scale (VAS) Back, -3.2 to -6.0 (expandable) versus -3.1 to -4.1 (static); and VAS Leg, -2.9 to -7.1 (expandable) -3.0 versus -4.8 (static). Static cages had a reported complication rate ranging from 6.0% to 16.1% and a subsidence rate of 6.0%. Expandable cages had a reported complication rate that ranged from 0.0.% to 10.0% and a subsidence rate of 5.5%-10.0%. A meta-analysis demonstrated a statistically significant difference in the PRO Oswestry Disability Index, but not VAS Back, VAS Leg, or radiographic outcomes (disk height or foraminal height)., Conclusion: There is no clear evidence for the use of expandable interbody devices over static devices.

Background Context: Dysphagia following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is a common complication, the etiology of which has not been established. Given that one potential mechanism for dysphagia is local tissue edema, it is thought that a greater number of operative levels may result in higher dysphagia rates. However, prior reports comparing one-level to two-level ACDF have shown varying results., Purpose: To determine if there is a difference in dysphagia between one-level and two-level ACDF., Study Design/setting: Retrospective review of prospectively collected data., Patient Sample: Patients who underwent one- or two-level ACDF with a plate-graft construct by a single-surgeon at a high-volume academic medical center., Outcome Measures: Neck Disability Index, Visual Analog Scale for neck pain and arm pain, Short Form-12 physical and mental health components, and Swallowing Quality of Life (SWAL-QOL) Questionnaire., Methods: Patient demographics, operative data, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs; Neck Disability Index, Visual Analog Scale, Short Form-12, and SWAL-QOL) of patients undergoing one- and two-level ACDF were compared using Fisher exact test for categorical variables and Student's t test for continuous variables. Regression analyses were conducted to identify factors associated with 6- and 12-week SWAL-QOL scores in order to determine whether the number of surgical levels impacts these outcomes., Results: Fifty-eight patients (22 one-level and 36 two-level ACDF) were included. Patients undergoing two-level fusions were older (54.17+8.67 vs 48.06+10.68 years, p=.02) and had longer operative times (69.08+10.51 vs 53.5+14.35 minutes, p<.0001). There were no other significant differences in demographics or operative data. Both groups showed a statistically significant improvement in PROMs from preoperatively to 12 weeks. There was no difference in PROMs or dysphagia rates between groups at any time-point. Younger age (p=.023), male sex (p=.021), longer operative times (p=.068), and worse preoperative SWAL-QOL (p<.0001) were associated with dysphagia at 6 weeks. Preoperative SWAL-QOL was the only variable associated with dysphagia at 12 weeks (p=.003). Operative time of >61.5 minutes had a sensitivity and specificity of 62.1% for worse dysphagia scores at 6 weeks compared with baseline., Conclusions: The results of our study indicate that there is no difference in the degree of postoperative dysphagia in one- versus two-level ACDF. However, other variables associated with increased postoperative dysphagia in our population included younger age, male sex, procedural time >61.5 minutes, and worse preoperative dysphagia. Larger studies are required to confirm these findings and identify additional risk factors for postoperative dysphagia., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Study Design: Systematic review., Objective: To determine the difference in postoperative sagittal alignment when single level cervical radiculopathy or myelopathy is treated with an anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) using a structural graft and plate, a stand-alone ACDF, or a total disc arthroplasty (TDR). We also wanted to determine if postoperative sagittal alignment impacted clinical outcomes in this patient population., Summary of Background Data: Although there are several accepted techniques for interbody reconstruction during single level anterior cervical surgery, little is known on the impact of any of them on segmental and regional sagittal alignment., Methods: A systematic review of the literature was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines of the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases. Only studies which contained pre and postoperative C2-7 Cobb angles as well as Neck Disability Index (NDI) scores following single level traditional ACDF with plate and cage, stand-alone ACDF, or TDR with at least 1 year follow up were included., Results: There were 12 publications that fulfilled the inclusion criteria with a total of 658 patients. Cluster regression analysis showed no difference between treatment arms at each respective time-point or in the overall change in NDI from preoperative to postoperative (P = 0.88). Cluster regression analysis showed no difference between treatment arms at each respective time point or in the overall change in lordosis from pre-op to post-op (P = 0.93)., Conclusion: This review provides evidence that while NDI scores improved across all devices, there was no significant difference in NDI improvement or C2-7 Cobb angle change between single level traditional ACDF, stand-alone ACDF, or TDR. Although TDR has not been considered a lordosis producing operation, our investigation shows it does not differ significantly in sagittal profile from other cervical fusion techniques. Moreover, we show that the NDI score improved, regardless of device implanted., Level of Evidence: 1.

Study Design: Basic Science., Objective: To determine if locally delivered simvastatin can enhance bone formation in a rat spinal fusion model., Summary of Background Data: The bone-anabolic properties of statins in fracture healing are well established, however, few studies have evaluated the impact of locally delivered statins in spinal fusion., Methods: We formulated poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA) nanoparticles by adapting previously published techniques. Two types of nanoparticles were created: simvastatin nanoparticles (SimNP) and nanoparticles without simvastatin (BlankNP). Drug elution from SimNP was characterized. Osteoblastic differentiation was analyzed using MC3T3-E1 cells cultured in differentiation medium containing SimNP or BlankNP. Forty male 12 week old outbred Wistar rats underwent uninstrumented posterolateral fusion using iliac crest bone graft and BlankNP, SimNP or simvastatin drug. X-rays to assess bone formation were obtained at 4 weeks and 9 weeks post-operatively. Spines were explanted at 9 weeks for micro-CT analysis, and a blinded manual assessment of fusion (MAF)., Results: SimNP achieved a release efficiency of 74.1% with ∼50% release occurring in the first day. Simvastatin and SimNP treated cells showed significantly greater expression of osteopontin (OPN) and osteocalcin (OCN). On micro-CT analysis, SimNP animals had higher bone volume and percent bone volume (bone volume/total volume) than control animals. SimNP rats had higher X-ray scores at 4 weeks (p=0.010) and 9 weeks (p<0.001) relative to BlankNP. MAF showed that SimNP had a higher fusion rate than BlankNP (42.9% vs. 0%, p=0.006)., Conclusion: We were able to validate that sustained release of simvastatin via a PLGA nanoparticle. SimNP was able to induce an increase in mineralization as well as an increase in markers of bone formation. X-ray analysis, micro-CT quantification, and MAF assessment of SimNP treated rats showed significantly greater bone formation and fusion mass strength relative to vehicle treated animals. Simvastatin may be a safe, cost-effective bone anabolic agent for use in spinal fusion., Level of Evidence: N/A.

Background: Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) has been used for treatment of a variety of spinal conditions including degenerative disc disorders and low-grade spondylolisthesis. Expected fusion rate of stand-alone ALIF constructs is currently unclear. The aim of this study was to examine the fusion rate for ALIF without supplemental posterior fusion or instrumentation (stand-alone ALIF)., Methods: We queried the MEDLINE, COCHRANE, and EMBASE databases for all literature related to spine fusion rates using a stand-alone ALIF procedure with a publication cutoff date of July 19, 2018. Supplementary combinations of search terms included spine, fusion, fixation, rate(s), and arthrodesis. ALIF surgery was considered stand-alone when not paired with supplemental posterior fusion or posterior spinal instrumentation. Nonhuman and non-English publications were excluded. Cohort fusion rate differences were calculated using Student t test with significance assigned if p value was less than .05., Results: Title and abstract level review required assessing 840 unique publications. Across the 55 studies that met the inclusion criteria of this systematic review, 5,517 patients and 6,303 vertebral levels were fused. The overall weighted average patient fusion rate following stand-alone ALIF was 88.2% (range: 16.6%-100%). In the 31 studies with at least 50 subjects, the weighted average fusion rate following stand-alone ALIF was 88.6% (range: 57.5%-99.0%). Use of anterior fixation plate devices yielded a fusion rate of 94.2%. Newer zero-profile interbody implants had a fusion rate of 89.2%. Fusion rates were lower in studies with 50% or more subjects having positive smoking and worker's compensation status, however these results were found to be statistically insignificant (p>.05). Fusion rate for subjects in the eight rhBMP-2 study groups was 94.4% (n=889) compared with 84.8% (n=3,102) in 38 study groups without rhBMP-2 used., Conclusions: Based on the available data, stand-alone ALIF procedures yield high fusion rates overall. Fusion failure and pseudoarthrosis rates are higher in study populations involving a high percentage of smokers or positive workers compensation status. Allograft utilization does not significantly improve fusion rate when compared with autograft in stand-alone ALIF constructs., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Study Design: Retrospective cohort., Objective: To compare postoperative improvements in surgical and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) between patients undergoing minimally invasive laminectomy and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF) as a primary procedure to patients undergoing MIS laminectomy and TLIF as a revision to primary lumbar decompression (LD)., Summary of Background Data: MIS TLIF and LD have demonstrated to be effective surgical options for lumbar degenerative disease. However, some patients undergoing LD experience recurrent symptoms and eventually require a revision decompression with fusion., Methods: A prospectively maintained surgical database of patients who underwent a primary or revision one-level MIS TLIF for degenerative spinal pathology between 2014 and 2016 was reviewed. Consecutive patients undergoing primary MIS TLIF and revision lumbar discectomy and/or laminectomy were matched in a one-to-one fashion to primary MIS TLIF patients who had not undergone a previous LD by age and preoperative diagnosis. Differences in patient demographic, comorbidity, and perioperative characteristics between procedure groups were assessed using Pearson chi-squared analysis and Student t test for categorical and continuous variables, respectively. Improvements in PROs from preoperative values were compared between primary and revision cohorts using Student t tests. Pearson chi-squared analysis was used to compare rates of minimum clinically important difference achievement between procedure groups. Statistical significant was set at P < 0.05., Results: A total of 52 patients were included in this analysis. Twenty-six underwent primary MIS laminectomy and TLIF and 26 underwent MIS TLIF with a revision decompression. No differences in baseline or perioperative variables were observed. Revision and primary MIS TLIF patients experienced similar improvements in PROs at all postoperative time points., Conclusion: The results of the present study demonstrate patients undergoing primary MIS TLIF with LD as a revision to a primary decompression experienced similar postoperative improvements in PROs as compared to primary MIS TLIF patients. This indicates a primary decompression does not compromise clinical outcomes in patients undergoing MIS TLIF. As such, patients should not be precluded from undergoing MIS TLIF based on the history of a previous LD., Level of Evidence: 3.