Search

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.)

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.)

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.)

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.

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.)

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: 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.)

Purpose: To determine the optimal level for the measurement of psoas cross-sectional area and examine the correlation with short-term functional outcomes of posterior lumbar surgery., Methods: Patients who underwent minimally invasive posterior lumbar surgery were included in this study. The cross-sectional area of psoas muscle was measured at each intervertebral level on T2-weighted axial images of preoperative MRI. Normalized total psoas area (NTPA) (mm 2 /m 2 ) was calculated as total psoas area normalized to patient height. Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) was calculated for the analysis of inter-rater reliability. Patient reported outcome measures including Oswestry disability index (ODI), visual analog scale (VAS), short form health survey (SF-12) and patient-reported outcomes measurement information system were collected. A multivariate analysis was performed to elucidate independent predictors associated with failure to reach minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in each functional outcome at 6 months., Results: The total of 212 patients were included in this study. ICC was highest at L3/4 [0.992 (95% CI: 0.987-0.994)] compared to the other levels [L1/2 0.983 (0.973-0.989), L2/3 0.991 (0.986-0.994), L4/5 0.928 (0.893-0.952)]. Postoperative PROMs were significantly worse in patients with low NTPA. Low NTPA was an independent predictor of failure to reach MCID in ODI (OR = 2.68; 95% CI: 1.26-5.67; p = 0.010) and VAS leg (OR = 2.43; 95% CI: 1.13-5.20; p = 0.022)., Conclusion: Decreased psoas cross-sectional area on preoperative MRI correlated with functional outcomes after posterior lumbar surgery. NTPA was highly reliable, especially at L3/4., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

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: Retrospective analysis on prospectively collected data., Objective: The purposes of this study were to (1) assess disparities in relative utilization of outpatient cervical spine surgery between White and Black patients from 2010 to 2019 and (2) to measure how these racial differences have evolved over time., Summary of Background Data: Although outpatient spine surgery has become increasingly popularized over the last decade, it remains unknown how racial disparities in surgical utilization have translated to the outpatient setting and whether restrictive patterns of access to outpatient cervical spine procedures may exist., Methods: A retrospective cohort study from 2010 to 2019 was conducted using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. Relative utilization of outpatient (same-day discharge) for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (OP-ACDF) and cervical disk replacement (OP-CDR) were assessed and trended over time between races. Multivariable regressions were subsequently utilized to adjust for baseline patient factors and comorbidities., Results: Overall, Black patients were significantly less likely to undergo OP-ACDF or OP-CDR surgery when compared with White patients ( P <0.03 for both OP-ACDF and OP-CDR). From 2010 to 2019, a persisting disparity over time was found in outpatient utilization for both ACDF and CDR ( e.g. White vs. Black OP-ACDF: 6.0% vs. 3.1% in 2010 compared with 16.7% vs. 8.5% in 2019). These results held in all adjusted analyses., Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first study reporting racial disparities in outpatient spine surgery and demonstrates an emerging disparity in outpatient cervical spine utilization among Black patients. These restrictive patterns of access to same-day outpatient hospital and surgery centers may contribute to broader disparities in the overall utilization of major spine procedures that have been previously reported. Renewed interventions are needed to both understand and address these emerging inequalities in outpatient care before they become more firmly established within our orthopedic and neurosurgery spine delivery systems., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background Context: Opioid utilization has been well studied for inpatient anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). However, the amount and type of opioids prescribed following ambulatory ACDF and the associated risk of persistent use are largely unknown., Purpose: To characterize opioid prescription filling following single-level ambulatory ACDF compared with inpatient procedures., Study Design/setting: Retrospective cohort study., Patient Sample: Opioid-naive patients who underwent ambulatory (no overnight stay) or inpatient single-level ACDF from 2011 to 2019 were identified from a national insurance database., Outcome Measures: Rate, amount, and type of perioperative opioid prescription., Methods: Opioid-naive patients who underwent ambulatory (no overnight stay) or inpatient single-level ACDF from 2011 to 2019 were identified from a national insurance database. Perioperative opioids were defined as opioid prescriptions 30 days before and 14 days after the procedure. Rate, amount, and type of opioid prescription were characterized. Multivariable analyses controlling for any differences in demographics and comorbidities between the two treatment groups were utilized to determine any association between surgical setting and persistent opioid use (defined as the patient still filling new opioid prescriptions >90 days postoperatively)., Results: A total of 42,521 opioid-naive patients were identified, of which 2,850 were ambulatory and 39,671 were inpatient. Ambulatory ACDF was associated with slightly increased perioperative opioid prescription filling (52.7% vs 47.3% for inpatient procedures; p<.001). Among the 20,280 patients (47.7%) who filled perioperative opioid prescriptions, the average amount of opioids prescribed (in morphine milligram equivalents) was similar between ambulatory and inpatient procedures (550 vs 540, p=.413). There was no association between surgical setting and persistent opioid use in patients who filled a perioperative opioid prescription, even after controlling for comorbidities, (adjusted odds ratio, 1.15, p=.066)., Conclusions: Ambulatory ACDF patients who filled perioperative opioid prescriptions were prescribed a similar amount of opioids as those undergoing inpatient procedures. Further, ambulatory ACDF does not appear to be a risk factor for persistent opioid use. These findings are important for patient counseling as well as support the safety profile of this new surgical pathway., Competing Interests: Declarations of Competing Interests One or more of the authors declare financial or professional relationships on ICMJE-TSJ disclosure forms., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier 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: 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.)

Study Design: A retrospective cohort comparison study., Objective: To compare perioperative outcomes, radiographic parameters, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) between minimally invasive unilateral laminotomy with bilateral decompression (MIS-ULBD) versus MIS transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) for treatment of low-grade lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis., Summary of Background Data: While lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis is a common condition, optimal surgical treatment remains controversial. Newer MIS techniques, which preserve bone, paraspinal musculature, and posterior midline stabilizers, are thought to reduce the risk of iatrogenic instability and may obviate the need for fusion. However, few comparative studies of MIS techniques for low-grade lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis currently exist., Materials and Methods: Consecutive patients with low-grade (Meyerding grade I or II) lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis treated with single-level MIS-ULBD or MIS-TLIF were identified retrospectively from a prospectively collected spine surgery registry from April 2017 to November 2021. Perioperative outcomes, radiographic data, and PROMs were assessed., Results: A total of 188 patients underwent either MIS-ULBD or MIS-TLIF (79 MIS-ULBD and 109 MIS-TLIF). Patients who underwent MIS-ULBD tended to be older, had higher Charlson Comorbidity Index, lower mean percentage back pain, higher percentage of L4/L5 pathology, shorter operative time, lower estimated blood loss, and lower postoperative pain ( P <0.05). In both groups, there were statistically significant improvements at one year for five of the six PROMs studied: Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), visual analog scale (VAS)-back pain, VAS-leg pain, Short Form 12 Physical Component Score (SF12-PCS), and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) ( P <0.05). On multivariate analysis controlling for confounders, there were no associations between procedure type and achieving minimal clinically important difference at one year in any of the PROMs studied., Conclusions: The current study suggests that both MIS-ULBD and MIS-TLIF result in significant improvements in pain and physical function for patients with low-grade lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis., Level of Evidences: 3., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, 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.)

Background Context: Health can impact work performance through absenteeism, time spent away from work, and presenteeism, inhibited at-work performance. Low back pain is common and costly, both in terms of direct medical expenditures and indirect reduced work performance., Purpose: Surgery for lumbar spinal pathology is an important part of treatment for patients who do not respond to nonsurgical management. While the indirect costs of return to work and absenteeism among employed patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery have been studied, little work has been done to quantify presenteeism before and after lumbar spine surgery., Study Design/setting: Prospective cohort study at a single high-volume urban musculoskeletal specialty hospital., Patient Sample: Patients undergoing single-level lumbar spinal fusion and/or decompression surgery., Outcome Measures: Presenteeism and absenteeism were measured using the World Health Organization's Health and Work Performance Questionnaire before surgery, as well as 6 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months after surgery., Methods: Average presenteeism and absenteeism were evaluated at pre-surgical baseline and each follow-up timepoint. Monthly average time lost to presenteeism and absenteeism were calculated before surgery and 12 months after surgery. Study data were collected and managed using REDCap electronic data capture tools with support from Clinical and Translational Science Center grant, UL1TR002384. One author discloses royalties, private investments, consulting fees, speaking/teaching arrangements, travel, board of directorship, and scientific advisory board membership totaling >$300,000., Results: We enrolled 134 employed surgical patients, among whom 115 (86%) responded at 6 weeks, 105 (78%) responded at 6 months, and 115 (86%) responded at 12 months. Preoperatively, mean age was 56.4 years (median 57.5), and 41.0% were women; 68 (50.7%) had only decompressions, while 66 (49.3%) had fusions. Among respondents at each time point, 98%, 92%, and 92% were still employed, among whom 76%, 96%, and 96% had resumed working, respectively (median 29 days). Average at-work performance among working patients (who responded at each pair of timepoints) moved from 75.4 to 78.7 between baseline and 6 weeks, 71.8 to 85.9 between baseline and 6 months, and 73.0 to 88.1 between baseline and 12 months. Gains were concentrated among the 52.0% of patients whose at-work performance was declining (and low) leading up to surgery. Average absenteeism was relatively unmoved between baseline and each follow-up. Before surgery, the monthly average time lost to presenteeism and absenteeism was 19.8% and 18.9%, respectively; 12 months after surgery, these numbers were 9.7% and 16.0%; changes represent a mitigated loss of 13.0 percentage points of average monthly value., Conclusions: Presenteeism and absenteeism contributed roughly evenly to preoperative average monthly lost time. Although average changes in absenteeism and 6-week at-work performance were small, average changes in at-work performance at 6 and 12 months were significant. Cost-benefit analyses of lumbar spine surgery should therefore consider improved presenteeism, which appears to offset some of the direct and indirect costs of surgical treatment., Competing Interests: Declarations of Competing Interests The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background Context: Patients undergoing minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) frequently present with lower extremity neurologic symptoms with or without associated lower back pain. While symptomatic improvement of leg and back pain has been reported, the resolution of back pain when it is a predominant presenting symptom remains underreported following MI-TLIF., Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare clinical outcomes at 1 year of patients undergoing MI-TLIF with lower extremity neurologic symptoms with and without a significant component of back pain., Study Design: A retrospective review of prospectively collected data from a single surgeon surgical database from 2017 to 2019 was performed., Patient Sample: Fifty one patients undergoing MI-TLIF., Outcome Measures: Self-reported measures included the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Visual analog scale back pain (VAS-back), and VAS leg pain (VAS-leg)., Methods: Patients were divided into two groups: Leg Pain Predominant (patients reported greater than 50% leg pain upon presentation) and Back Pain Predominant (patients reported 50% or greater back pain). Multivariate analysis was performed to determine differences between groups based upon any significantly baseline characteristics., Results: Preoperative demographic and radiographic outcomes were similar between the two groups. Both groups demonstrated significant improvement in ODI, VAS-Back and VAS-leg at 1-year postoperatively. On multivariate analysis, there were differences in ODI at 1-year, 1-year back pain, and 1-year leg pain between groups with those who initially presented with leg pain having a lower ODI, VAS Back, and VAS leg. Patients who presented with predominantly leg pain were more likely to meet minimal clinically important difference (MCID) criteria for ODI and VAS-back compared to those with predominantly back pain., Conclusion: Following MI-TLIF, patients with lower extremity neurologic symptoms with and without a significant component of back pain have improvements in back pain, leg pain, and ODI regardless of their primary presenting pain complaint; however, patients who presented with predominantly leg pain were more likely to meet MCID criteria for improvement in their back pain and ODI score., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Study Design: Retrospective cohort study., Objective: The aim was to compare clinical outcomes in patients with significant cervical spondylosis treated with cervical disc replacement (CDR) compared with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF)., Summary of Background Data: As CDR utilization has increased over the past decade, recent studies have investigated the outcomes of CDR in patients with more significant spondylotic changes and demonstrated improved postoperative patient-reported outcomes (PROs). However, no prior study has investigated clinical outcomes of patients with significant spondylotic changes treated with CDR in comparison to ACDF., Methods: Patients who underwent 1-level or 2-level CDR or ACDF with significant cervical spondylosis, quantified using a validated grading scale, were identified, and prospectively collected data was retrospectively reviewed. The following PROs were analyzed: Neck Disability Index (NDI), visual analog scale-Neck, visual analog scale-Arm, and PROMIS Physical Function (PROMIS-PF) Computer Adaptive Test Score. Demographic, operative, and radiographic variables, and achievement of minimum clinically important difference (MCID) for each PRO were compared between the 2 groups., Results: A total of 66 patients were included in the present study, of which 35 (53%) were treated with CDR and 31 (47%) with ACDF. The preoperative cervical spondylotic grade was similar between the 2 groups (1.8 vs. 2.2, P=0.27). At final follow-up, there was no significant difference in the absolute value for each PRO between the 2 groups (P>0.19) and both groups demonstrated significant improvement in each PRO compared with preoperative values (P<0.01). There was no significant difference in the percentage of patients achieving the MCID for each PRO when comparing CDR to ACDF (P>0.09)., Conclusions: A similar percentage of patients with significant degenerative cervical spondylosis achieved the MCID across multiple PROs when treated with CDR or ACDF. Patients in both treatment groups demonstrated significant improvement in all PROs assessed when compared with preoperative values., Level of Evidence: Level III., Competing Interests: T.A.A: Royalties from Zimmer Biomet, DePuy Synthes Spine; Consulting Fees from Nuvasive, DePuy Synthes; Book Royalties from JP Medical Publishers, Thieme Medical Publishers, Springer, Elsevier Inc.; Ownership Interests in Innovative Surgical Designs Inc., Bonovo Orthopedics Inc., InVivo Therapeutics, Spinicity, CytoDyn Inc., Paradigm Spine, HS2 LLC, Strathspey Crown, Surg.IO LLC, Augmedics, Morphogenesis, Precision Orthopedics, Pulse Equity, Physician Recommended Neutriceuticals, Parvizi Surgical Innovations; Board member/Other office: Back Story LLC, Scoliosis Research Society, Spine Universe, American Orthopaedic Association. S.A.Q.: Consulting: Globus Medical, Inc., Stryker K2M, Paradigm Spine (Past relationship); Royalties: Globus Medical Inc., Stryker K2M; Private Investments: Tissue Differentiation Intelligence, Vital 5 (Past relationship); Scientific Advisory Board: Healthgrades (Past relationship), Lifelink.Com Inc., Spinal Simplicity, LLC; Speaking and/or Teaching Arrangements: AMopportunities, Globus Medical, Inc., RTI Surgical Inc.; Trips/Travel: Globus Medical, Inc., Integrity Implants Inc., Medical Device Business Services, Medtronic USA, Inc., Nuvasive, Inc., Paradigm Spine, Stryker K2M; Board of Directors: Society Of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery; Other Office: Annals Of Translational Medicine (Editorial Board Member), Association Of Bone And Joint Surgeons (Committee Member), Cervical Spine Research Society (Committee Member), Contemporary Spine Surgery (Editorial Board Member), International Society For The Advancement Of Spine Surgery (Committee Member), Lumbar Spine Research Society (Committee Member), Minimally Invasive Spine Study Group (Board Member), North American Spine Society (Committee Member), Simplify Medical, Inc. (Clinical Events Committee Member), Society Of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery (Committee Member, Board Member). The remaining authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Study Design: Retrospective cohort comparison study., Objective: The aim was to compare perioperative complications and 30-day readmission between ambulatory and inpatient posterior cervical foraminotomy (PCF) in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database., Summary of Background Data: Single-level PCF for cervical radiculopathy is increasingly being performed as an ambulatory procedure. Despite this increase, there is a lack of published literature documenting the safety of ambulatory PCF., Materials and Methods: Patients who underwent PCF (through laminotomy or laminectomy) were identified in the 2005-2018 NSQIP database. Ambulatory procedures were defined as cases that had hospital length of stay=0 days. Inpatient procedures were defined as cases that had length of stay=1-4 days. Patient characteristics, comorbidities, and procedural variables (laminotomy or laminectomy performed) were compared between the 2 cohorts. Propensity score matched comparisons were then performed for postoperative complications and 30-day readmissions between the 2 groups., Results: In total, 795 ambulatory and 1789 inpatient single-level PCF cases were identified. After matching, there were 795 ambulatory and 795 inpatient cases. Statistical analysis after propensity score matching revealed no significant difference in individual complications including 30-day readmission, thromboembolic events, wound complications, and reoperation, or aggregated complications between ambulatory versus matched inpatient procedures. Overall 30-day readmissions after ambulatory single-level PCF were noted for 2.46% of the study population, and the most common reasons were surgical site infections (46%) and pain control (15%)., Conclusions: The perioperative outcomes assessed in this study support the conclusion that single-level PCF for cervical radiculopathy can be performed for correctly selected patients in the ambulatory setting without increased rates of 30-day perioperative complications or readmissions compared with inpatient procedures., Level of Evidence: Level III., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Study Design: Retrospective review., Objective: The aim was to evaluate the learning curve of skin-anchored intraoperative navigation (ION) for minimally invasive lumbar surgery., Summary of Background Data: ION is increasingly being utilized to provide better visualization, improve accuracy, and enable less invasive procedures. The use of noninvasive skin-anchored trackers for navigation is a novel technique, with the few reports on this technique demonstrating safety, feasibility, and significant reductions in radiation exposure compared with conventional fluoroscopy. However, a commonly cited deterrent to wider adoption is the learning curve., Methods: Retrospective review of patients undergoing 1-level minimally invasive lumbar surgery was performed. Outcomes were: (1) time for ION set-up and image-acquisition; (2) operative time; (3) fluoroscopy time; (4) radiation dose; (5) operative complications; (6) need for repeat spin; (7) incorrect localization.Chronologic case number was plotted against each outcome. Derivative of the nonlinear curve fit to the dataset for each outcome was solved to find plateau in learning., Results: A total of 270 patients [114 microdiscectomy; 79 laminectomy; 77 minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF)] were included. (1) ION set-up and image-acquisition: no learning curve for microdiscectomy. Proficiency at 23 and 31 cases for laminectomy and MI-TLIF, respectively. (2) Operative time: no learning curve for microdiscectomy. Proficiency at 36 and 31 cases for laminectomy and MI-TLIF, respectively. (3) Fluoroscopy time: no learning curve. (4) Radiation dose: proficiency at 42 and 33 cases for microdiscectomy and laminectomy, respectively. No learning curve for MI-TLIF. (5) Operative complications: unable to evaluate for microdiscectomy and MI-TLIF. Proficiency at 29 cases for laminectomy. (6) Repeat spin: unable to evaluate for microdiscectomy and laminectomy. For MI-TLIF, chronology was not associated with repeat spins. (7) Incorrect localization: none., Conclusions: Skin-anchored ION did not result in any wrong level surgeries. Learning curve for other parameters varied by surgery type, but was achieved at 25-35 cases for a majority of outcomes., Level of Evidence: Level III., Competing Interests: S.A.Q: consulting: Paradigm Spine, Globus Medical Inc., Stryker K2M; Royalties: Globus Medical Inc., Stryker K2M; Ownership interest: Avaz Surgical, Vital 5 (past relationship); Scientific Advisory Board/Other Office: 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; Editorial Board: Annals of Translational Medicine, Global Spine Journal, Journal of American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, Spine, The Spine Journal; Honoraria: AMOpportunities, RTI Surgical Inc.; Speakers fees: Globus Medical Inc. The remaining authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

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.)

Objective: The accuracy of percutaneous pedicle screw placement has increased with the advent of robotic and surgical navigation technologies. However, the effect of robotic intraoperative screw size and trajectory templating remains unclear. The purpose of this study was to compare pedicle screw sizes and accuracy of placement using robotic navigation (RN) versus skin-based intraoperative navigation (ION) alone in minimally invasive lumbar fusion procedures., Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using a single-institution registry of spine procedures performed over a 4-year period. Patients who underwent 1- or 2-level primary or revision minimally invasive surgery (MIS)-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) with pedicle screw placement, via either robotic assistance or surgical navigation alone, were included. Demographic, surgical, and radiographic data were collected. Pedicle screw type, quantity, length, diameter, and the presence of endplate breach or facet joint violation were assessed. Statistical analysis using the Student t-test and chi-square test was performed to evaluate the differences in pedicle screw sizes and the accuracy of placement between both groups., Results: Overall, 222 patients were included, of whom 92 underwent RN and 130 underwent ION MIS-TLIF. A total of 403 and 534 pedicle screws were placed with RN and ION, respectively. The mean screw diameters were 7.25 ± 0.81 mm and 6.72 ± 0.49 mm (p < 0.001) for the RN and ION groups, respectively. The mean screw length was 48.4 ± 4.48 mm in the RN group and 45.6 ± 3.46 mm in the ION group (p < 0.001). The rates of "ideal" pedicle screws in the RN and ION groups were comparable at 88.5% and 88.4% (p = 0.969), respectively. The overall screw placement was also similar. The RN cohort had 63.7% screws rated as good and 31.4% as acceptable, while 66.1% of ION-placed screws had good placement and 28.7% had acceptable placement (p = 0.661 and p = 0.595, respectively). There was a significant reduction in high-grade breaches in the RN group (0%, n = 0) compared with the ION group (1.2%, n = 17, p = 0.05)., Conclusions: The results of this study suggest that robotic assistance allows for placement of screws with greater screw diameter and length compared with surgical navigation alone, although with similarly high accuracy. These findings have implied that robotic platforms may allow for safe placement of the "optimal screw," maximizing construct stability and, thus, the ability to obtain a successful fusion.

Background Context: Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) is a common operative approach to address degenerative lumbar stenosis and spondylolisthesis which has failed nonoperative care. Compared to open TLIF, MI-TLIF relies to a greater extent on indirect decompression resulting in a heightened awareness of spondylolisthesis reduction among MI surgeons. To what extent intraoperative reduction is achieved as well as the rate and clinical impact of loss or reduction and slip recurrence remain unknown., Purpose: To determine the rate and clinical impact of slip recurrence after MI-TLIF with expandable cage technology STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective Cohort Study PATIENT SAMPLE: Patients undergoing MI-TLIF for degenerative spondylolisthesis using an articulating, expandable cage OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), including the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), visual analog scale (VAS) for back/leg pain, Short Form-12 (SF-12), and PROMIS Physical Function (PF) METHODS: Patients undergoing MI-TLIF for degenerative spondylolisthesis using articulating, expandable cages from 2017 to 2019 were retrospectively studied. Lateral radiographs were reviewed and evaluated for the presence or absence of spondylolisthesis preoperatively, intraoperatively, and at follow-up times including 2 weeks, 6 weeks, 12 weeks, 6 months, and 1 year postoperatively. Spondylolisthesis was measured from the posterior inferior corner of the cephalad vertebra to the posterior superior corner of the caudal vertebra, with any measurement >1 mm classified as spondylolisthesis, and Meyerding grade was noted. Intraoperative reduction was measured, and loss of reduction was defined as >1 mm increase in spondylolisthesis comparing follow-up imaging to intraoperative films. PROMs were recorded at the preoperative and follow-up time points. Fusion was assessed at 1 year postoperatively via CT., Results: A total of 63 patients and 70 levels were included, with mean age 59.8 years (SD,13.8). 19 levels (27.1%) had complete reduction intraoperatively, 40 (57.1%) had partial reduction, and 11 (15.7%) had no reduction. Of the 30 levels with loss of reduction (50.8%), 20 (66.7%) occurred by 2 weeks postoperatively and 28 (93.3%) occurred by 12 weeks postoperatively. At 6 months, there were significant differences between those who had loss of reduction and those who did not in VAS back pain (3.0 vs. 0.9, p = .017) and SF-12 PCS (41.5 vs. 50.0, p = .035), but no differences were found between the groups for any instruments at any other time points. The overall fusion rate was 82.1% (32/39) at 1 year postoperatively. There was no significant difference in fusion rate between the loss of reduction (16/20) and no loss of reduction (20/23) groups. Patients with loss of reduction had no difference in reoperation rate (1/28) compared to those without loss of reduction (2/24)., Conclusions: While a majority of patients demonstrated reduction intraoperatively, 51% had loss of reduction, most commonly in the acute postoperative period. There were few differences in PROMs between patients who had loss of reduction and those who did not, suggesting that radiographic loss of reduction after MI-TLIF in the setting of degenerative spondylolisthesis may not be clinically meaningful., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Study Design: This was a prospective consecutive clinical cohort study., Objective: The purpose of our study was to develop and provide an initial internal validation of a novel classification system that can help surgeons and patients better understand their postoperative course following the particular minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and approach that is utilized., Summary of Background Data: Surgeons and patients are often attracted to the option of minimally invasive spine surgery because of the perceived improvement in recovery time and postsurgical pain. A classification system based on the impact of the surgery and surgical approach(es) on postoperative recovery can be particularly helpful., Methods: Six hundred thirty-one patients who underwent MIS lumbar/thoracolumbar surgery for degenerative conditions of the spine were included. Perioperative outcomes-operative time, estimated blood loss, postsurgical length of stay (LOS), 90-day complications, postoperative day zero narcotic requirement [in Morphine Milligram Equivalent (MME)], and need for intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV PCA)., Results: Postoperative LOS and postoperative narcotic use were deemed most clinically relevant, thus selected as primary outcomes. Type of surgery was significantly associated with all outcomes (P<0.0001), except intraoperative complications. Number of levels for fusion was significantly associated with operative time, in-hospital complications, 24 hours oral MME, and the need for IV PCA and LOS (P<0.0001). Number of surgical approaches for lumbar fusion was significantly associated with operative time, 24 hours oral MME, need for IV PCA and LOS (P<0.001). Based on these parameters, the following classification system ("Qureshi-Louie classification" for MIS degenerative lumbar surgery) was devised: (1) Decompression-only; (2) Fusion-1 and 2 levels, 1 approach; (3) Fusion-1 level, 2 approaches; (4) Fusion-2 levels, 2 approaches; (5) Fusion-3+ levels, 2 approaches., Conclusions: We present a novel classification system and initial internal validation to describe the perioperative expectations following various MIS surgeries in the degenerative lumbar spine. This initial description serves as the basis for ongoing external validation., Competing Interests: V.L.: Royalty/Patent holder: NuVasive Inc.; Ownership: Nemaris; Consulting: Globus Medical Inc.; Honoraria: The Permanente Medical Group, DePuy Synthes Spine. S.A.Q.: Consulting: Paradigm Spine, Globus Medical Inc., Stryker K2M; Royalties: Globus Medical Inc., Stryker K2M; Ownership interest: Avaz Surgical, Vital 5 (past relationship); Scientific Advisory Board/Other Office: 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; Editorial Board: Annals of Translational Medicine, Global Spine Journal, Journal of American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, Spine, The Spine Journal; Honoraria: AMOpportunities, RTI Surgical Inc.; Speakers fees: Globus Medical Inc. The remaining authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Study Design: This was a retrospective cohort review., Objective: The objective of this study was to determine the rate of fusion associated with an expandable cage and iliac crest bone graft in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) surgery., Summary of Background Data: MI-TLIF is a commonly performed procedure, but challenges inherent in MI-TLIF technique can make achieving an interbody fusion difficult., Methods: A retrospective review was performed on consecutive patients treated with an MI-TLIF for degenerative lumbar pathology. Patients that completed patient-reported outcome measures and 1-year computed tomography (CT)-scans for fusion analysis were included. Fusion morphology was analyzed by evaluating CT scans for location of bridging trabecular bone in relation to the cage. Patients with bridging bone were considered fused. Preoperative and postoperative health-related quality of life scores were compared. A Kolmogrov-Smirnoff test was used to determine normality of health-related outcome scores. A Friedman 2-way analysis of variance by ranks with pairwise comparisons to determine statistical significance of differences between the date of a follow-up examination and preoperative examination was done., Results: Of 75 patients evaluated 23 patients were excluded due to loss to follow-up, adjacent segment degeneration, inability to obtain a CT scan, or reoperation for nonfusion related symptoms. Of 61 disk spaces that were included, 55 had bridging bone through the intervertebral cage, resulting in an overall fusion rate of 90.2%. There was a higher rate of fusion at L5-S1 as compared to L4-L5. There was mean improvement in patient-reported outcome measures for Oswestry Disability Index, Short Form-12 Physical Component Score, Visual Analog Scale Back/Leg pain, and Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System Physical Function. There were no complications associated with iliac crest bone graft harvesting., Conclusion: Combining an expandable cage with iliac crest autograft bone harvested through a minimally invasive technique can allow for improved fusion rates without graft-site complications in MI-TLIF surgery., Competing Interests: S.C.: Speakers fees: Globus Medical Inc., Stryker; Editorial/Governing board: Global Spine Journal, OrthopaedicsOn; Board/Committee member: North American Spine Society, ACSS. S.A.Q.: Consulting: Paradigm Spine, Globus Medical Inc., Stryker K2M; Royalties: Globus Medical Inc., Stryker K2M; Ownership interest: Avaz Surgical, Vital 5 (past relationship); Scientific Advisory Board/Other Office: 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; Editorial Board: Annals of Translational Medicine, Global Spine Journal, Journal of American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, Spine, The Spine Journal; Honoraria: AMOpportunities, RTI Surgical Inc.; Speakers fees: Globus Medical Inc. The remaining authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Case: A 47-year-old healthy man underwent cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) for a C6 radiculopathy. Two-week radiographs showed a well-positioned implant. At the 6-week postoperative visit, the inferior portion of the implant had displaced ventrally, with C6 anterior vertebral body collapse. The next day, the implant was removed and converted to a C5/6 anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Bone biopsy was unremarkable., Conclusions: This is the first reported case of early catastrophic failure of a well-positioned CDA in a healthy patient with good bone quality. Possible contributing mechanisms include hypermobility and anterior bone loss, factors previously associated with CDA., Competing Interests: Disclosure: The Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest forms are provided with the online version of the article (http://links.lww.com/JBJSCC/B367)., (Copyright © 2021 by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Incorporated.)

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.

Background: Sagittal alignment is an important consideration in spine surgery. The literature is conflicted regarding the effect of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) on sagittal parameters and the role of expandable cage technology., Objective: To compare lordosis generated by static and expandable cages and to determine what factors affect postoperative sagittal parameters., Methods: Preoperative regional lordosis (RL), segmental lordosis (SL), and posterior disc height (PDH) were compared to postoperative values in single-level MI-TLIF performed using expandable or static cages. Patients were stratified based on preoperative SL: low lordosis (<15 degrees), moderate lordosis (15-25 degrees), and high lordosis (>25 degrees). Regression analyses were conducted to determine factors associated with postoperative SL and PDH., Results: Of the 171 patients included, 111 were in the static and 60 in the expandable cohorts. Patients with low preoperative lordosis experienced an increase in SL and maintained RL regardless of cage type. Those with moderate to high preoperative lordosis experienced a decrease in SL and RL with the static cage, but maintained SL and RL with the expandable cage. Although both cohorts showed an increase in PDH, the increase in the expandable cohort was greater. Preoperative SL was predictive of postoperative SL; preoperative SL, preoperative PDH, and cage type were predictive of postoperative PDH., Conclusion: Expandable cages showed favorable results in restoring disc height and maintaining lordosis in the immediate postoperative period. Preoperative SL was the most significant predictor of postoperative SL. Thus, preoperative radiographic parameters and goals of surgery should be important considerations in surgical planning., (Copyright © 2019 by the Congress of Neurological Surgeons.)

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.)