Search

Affective disorders, including depression and anxiety disorders, are becoming more prevalent among the general population and patients. The objective of this study was to examine the association between affective disorders and outcome measures in patients undergoing elective lumbar spinal fusion. A retrospective cohort study was conducted using the National Inpatient Sample database. Patients who underwent lumbar fusions between 2011-2018. Hospital charges, length of hospital stay, postoperatrive compliations. Patients were stratified into two groups: (1) with affective disorder and (2) without affective disorder. Propensity score matching was utilized to minimize effect of confounding variables. A total of 255,875 cases of lumbar fusions met inclusion criteria. A total of 25,843 (10.1%) patients carried the diagnosis of affective disorder and were significantly more likely to be non-White (45.1% vs 19.9%) and of older age group (59.2 vs 49.9 years) as compared to patients without affective disorders. Patients with affective disorder had longer hospital stay (6.1 vs 3.1 days) as well as increased hospital charges ($88,819 vs $78,650), (P <0.001). No difference was observed in the rates of postoperative complications or short-term mortality between the two groups. Our study found that affective disorders were significantly associated with increased length of hospital stay as well as increased total hospital charges in patients undergoing elective lumbar spinal fusion. Future studies are encouraged to further investigate the feasibility of perioperative screening and for affective disorders and addressing them accordingly. This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

Study Design: Electronic survey.Objective: To identify the surgical treatment patterns for low back pain (LBP), among U.S. spine surgeons. Specifically determine (1) differences in surgical treatment responses based on various demographic variables; (2) probability of disagreement based on surgeon subgroups.Summary Of Background Data: Multiple surgical and nonsurgical treatments exist for LBP. Without strong evidence or clear guidelines for the indications and optimal treatments, there is substantial variability in surgical treatments used.Methods: A total of 445 U.S. spine surgeons completed a survey of clinical and radiographic case scenarios on patients with mechanical LBP, no leg pain, and concordant discograms. Surgical treatment options included no surgery, anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), posterolateral fusion with pedicle screws, transforaminal/posterior lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF/PLIF), etc. Statistical significance was set at 0.01 to account for multiple comparisons.Results: There was substantial clinical equipoise (∼75% disagreement) among surgeons on the approach to treat patients with LBP. Disagreement was highest in the southwest and lowest in the Midwest (82% vs. 69%, respectively); there was significantly lower disagreement among those in academic practices versus those in private/hybrid practices (56% vs.79%, respectively). Those in academic practices had approximately four times greater odds of choosing no surgery as compared to those in hybrid and private practices, who were more likely to choose ALIF or PLIF/TLIF. Those with fellowship training had approximately two times greater odds of selecting no surgery and four times greater odds of selecting ALIF as compared to those without fellowship training who were more likely to select TLIF/PLIF.Conclusion: Significant differences exist among U.S. spine surgeons in the treatment of LBP. These differences stem from geographical location of the practice, specialty, practice type, and fellowship training. Recognizing the substantial variability underlies the importance of additional studies aimed at identifying the proper indications and most cost-effective treatments for LBP.Level Of Evidence: 3. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Design. Systematic review. Objective. To evaluate literature comparing fusion rates in anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), posterior lumbar interbody/transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF/TLIF), and posterolateral lumbar fusion (PLF) with and without recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2). Summary of Background Data. rhBMP-2 is used for the FDA-approved indication of single-level ALIF with LT-Cage and off-label for PLIF/TLIF, and PLF. Due to recent controversies, it is essential to evaluate the literature for its effects on fusion rates to evaluate whether benefits outweigh potential complications. Methods. A Medline search was performed of clinical studies published between May 2000 and May 2012 comparing fusion rates after ALIF, PLIF/TLIF, and PLF surgery with versus without rhBMP-2. Only studies with a control arm were reviewed. Results. 16 studies were reviewed (1794 patients, 995 treated with rhBMP-2 and 799 without). 5 of 5 studies for PLIF/TLIF (including 301 of 301 patients), 1 of 4 for ALIF (including 279 of 589 patients), and 3 of 7 for PLF (including 272 of 904 patients) reported no significant improvement in fusion rates with rhBMP-2 compared with those without rhBMP-2 at longest follow-up investigated. Average fusion rate 24 months after surgery was 97.8% for ALIF (n = 316), 95.7% for PLIF/TLIF (n = 141), and 93.6% for PLF (n = 422) with rhBMP-2 and 88.2% (n =228), 89.5% (n =86), and 83.1% (n =372) without rhBMP-2, for ALIF, PLIF/TLIF, and PLF, respectively. Odds ratio of fusion were calculated as 7.08 (95% CI: 1.54-32.7) in ALIF, 1.98 (95% CI: 0.39-10.1) in PLIF/TLIF, and 3.06 (95% CI: 1.61-5.80) in PLF with rhBMP-2 as compared with without rhBMP-2. Conclusion. Although numerous studies did not show statistically significant improvement in fusion rates with rhBMP-2 use, analysis of combined studies revealed significant improvement in fusion rate with rhBMP-2 in ALIF and PLF patients. Notably, even when pooling data from several studies, rhBMP-2 did not result in statistically significantly improved fusion rates in PLIF/TLIF. However, heterogeneity of rhBMP-2 dosing, surgical techniques, and quality of papers reviewed may limit the validity of conclusions drawn. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background context In select patients, posterior cervical foraminotomy (PCF) and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) result in similar clinical outcomes when used to treat cervical radiculopathy. Nonetheless, ACDF is performed more frequently, in part because of surgeon perception that PCF requires operative revisions more frequently. The present study investigates the rate of ACDF reoperation at the index level after initial PCF. Purpose To determine the rate of ACDF after initial PCF and to further describe any patient characteristics or preoperative or operative data that increase the rate of reoperation after PCF. Study design Retrospective chart review. Methods Demographic, operative, and reoperation information was collected from the electronic medical records for all patients who underwent PCF at one institution between 2004 and 2011. All patients were subsequently contacted by telephone to identify postoperative complications and more conclusively determine whether any revision operation was performed at the index level. Results One hundred seventy-eight patients who underwent a PCF were reviewed, with an average follow-up of 31.7 months. Nine (5%) patients underwent an ACDF revision operation at the index level. The reason for reoperation in these patients included cervical radiculopathy, foraminal stenosis, disc herniation, and cervical spondylosis. Patients who subsequently underwent ACDF at the index level were significantly younger (25 vs. 35 years, p=.03), had lower body mass index (25 vs. 29, p=.01), and more likely to take anxiolytic (56% vs. 22%, p=.04) or antidepressant medication (67% vs. 27%, p=.02), compared with those that did not have a revision operation. Conclusions This is the first study to determine conversion to ACDF after PCF. The present study demonstrates that PCF is associated with a low reoperation rate, similar to the historical reoperation for ACDF. Accordingly, spine surgeons can operate via a PCF approach without a significant increased risk for ACDF revision surgery at the index level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Poor bone quality and low bone mineral density (BMD) have been previously tied to higher rates of postoperative mechanical complications in patients undergoing spinal fusion. These include higher rates of proximal junctional kyphosis, screw pullout, pseudoarthrosis, and interbody subsidence. For these reasons, accurate preoperative assessment of a patient's underlying bone quality is paramount for all elective procedures. Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is currently considered to be the gold standard for assessing BMD. However, a growing body of research has suggested that in vivo assessments of BMD using DXA are inaccurate and have, at best, moderate correlations to postoperative mechanical complications. Consequently, there have been investigations into using alternative methods for assessing in vivo bone quality, including using computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) volumes that are commonly obtained as part of surgical evaluation. Here we review the data regarding the accuracy of DXA for the evaluation of spine bone quality and describe the alternative imaging modalities currently under investigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Preoperative patient optimization is increasingly recognized as key to good surgical outcomes. Preoperative hyponatremia is a modifiable risk factor linked to poorer postoperative outcomes in other surgical fields. We provide the first investigation of the association of preoperative hyponatremia with morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing cervical spine surgery. We queried the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program registry for patients who underwent cervical spine fusion. Preoperative serum sodium levels were classified as normal (135–145 mEq/L) or hyponatremic (<135 mEq/L); hypernatremic patients were excluded from the analysis. Multivariable logistic analyses using a multiple imputations methodology were performed to determine significant predictors of major morbidity and mortality (MMM). We included 20,817 patients, of whom 5.2% were hyponatremic at presentation. Preoperative hyponatremia was a significant predictor of MMM (odds ratio [OR], 1.23; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09–1.39), mortality (OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.03–1.77), major morbidity (OR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.10–1.40), and odds of prolonged hospitalization (OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.04–1.23). Other significant predictors of MMM included age, undergoing an emergent versus nonemergent operation, having chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, having disseminated malignancy, being functionally dependent, presenting with sepsis or septic shock, and having an American Society of Anesthesiologists status of 3, 4, or 5. Similar results were seen in analyses using only complete cases and in sensitivity analyses. Using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database, hyponatremia is observed in approximately 1 in every 20 patients undergoing cervical spine fusion. More importantly, it is a predictor of mortality, major morbidity, and prolonged hospitalization. From a systems-level perspective, preoperative hyponatremia may therefore represent a point of intervention for preoperative patient optimization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Vertebral bone quality had a significant impact on postoperative outcomes in spinal fusion surgery. New magnetic resonance imaging−based measures, such as the Vertebral Bone Quality (VBQ) score, may allow for bone quality assessment without the radiation associated with conventional testing. In the present study, we sought to assess the intrarater and interrater reliability of VBQ scores calculated by medical professionals and trainees. Thirteen reviewers of various specialties and levels of training were recruited and asked to calculate VBQ scores for 30 patients at 2 time points separated by 2 months. Scored volumes were acquired from patients treated for both degenerative and oncologic indications. Intrarater and interrater agreement, quantified by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), was assessed using 2-way random effects modeling. Square-weight Cohen κ and Kendall Tau-b were used to determine whether raters assigned similar scores during both evaluations. All raters showed moderate to excellent reliability for VBQ score (ICC 0.667−0.957; κ0.648−0.921) and excellent reliability for all constituent components used to calculate VBQ score (ICC all ≥0.97). Interrater reliability was also found to be good for VBQ score on both the first (ICC = 0.818) and second (ICC = 0.800) rounds of assessment; scores for the constituent component all had ICC values ≥0.97 for the constituent components. The VBQ score appears to have both good intrarater and interrater reliability. In addition, there appeared to be no correlation between score reliability and level of training. External validation and further investigations of its ability to accurately model bone biomechanical properties are necessary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

Background Context: The incidence of adverse care quality events among patients undergoing cervical fusion surgery is unknown using the definition of care quality employed by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). The effect of insurance status on the incidence of these adverse quality events is also unknown.Purpose: This study determined the incidence of hospital-acquired conditions (HAC) and patient safety indicators (PSI) in patients with cervical spine fusion and analyzed the association between primary payer status and these adverse events.Study Design: This is a retrospective cohort design.Patient Sample: All patients in the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) aged 18 and older who underwent cervical spine fusion from 1998 to 2011 were included.Outcome Measures: Incidence of HAC and PSI from 1998 to 2011 served as outcome variables.Methods: We queried the NIS for all hospitalizations that included a cervical fusion during the inpatient episode from 1998 to 2011. All comparisons were made between privately insured patients and Medicaid or self-pay patients because Medicare enrollment is confounded with age. Incidence of nontraumatic HAC and PSI was determined using publicly available lists of International Classification of Disease, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) diagnosis codes. We built logistic regression models to determine the effect of primary payer status on PSI and nontraumatic HAC.Results: We identified 419,424 hospitalizations with cervical fusion performed during an inpatient episode. The estimated national incidences of nontraumatic HAC and PSI were 0.35% and 1.6%, respectively. After adjusting for patient demographics and hospital characteristics, Medicaid or self-pay patients had significantly greater odds of experiencing one or more HAC (odds ratio [OR] 1.51 95% conflict of interest [CI] 1.23-1.84) or PSI (OR 1.52 95% CI 1.37-1.70) than the privately insured cohort.Conclusions: Among patients undergoing inpatient cervical fusion, primary payer status predicts PSI and HAC (both indicators of adverse health-care quality used to determine hospital reimbursement by CMS). As the US health-care system transitions to a value-based payment model, the cause of these disparities must be studied to improve the quality of care delivered to vulnerable patient populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]