Search

Background: The costs and outcomes following degenerative spine surgery may vary from surgeon to surgeon. Patient factors such as comorbidities may increase the health care cost. These variations are not well studied., Objective: To understand the variation in outcomes, costs, and comorbidity-adjusted cost for surgeons performing lumbar laminectomy and fusions surgery., Methods: A total of 752 patients undergoing laminectomy and fusion, performed by 7 surgeons, were analyzed. Patient-reported outcomes and 90-d cost were analyzed. Multivariate regression model was built for high-cost surgery. A separate linear regression model was built to derive comorbidity-adjusted 90-d costs., Results: No significant differences in improvement were found across all the patient-reported outcomes, complications, and readmission among the surgeons. In multivariable model, surgeons #4 (P < .0001) and #6 (P = .002) had higher odds of performing high-cost fusion surgery. The comorbidity-adjusted costs were higher than the actual 90-d costs for surgeons #1 (P = .08), #3 (P = .002), #5 (P < .0001), and #7 (P < .0001), whereas they were lower than the actual costs for surgeons #2 (P = .128), #4 (P < .0001), and #6 (P = .44)., Conclusion: Our study provides valuable insight into variations in 90-d costs among the surgeons performing elective lumbar laminectomy and fusion at a single institution. Specific surgeons were found to have greater odds of performing high-cost surgeries. Adjusting for preoperative comorbidities, however, led to costs that were higher than the actual costs for certain surgeons and lower than the actual costs for others. Patients' preoperative comorbidities must be accounted for when crafting value-based payment models. Furthermore, designing intervention targeting "modifiable" factors tied to the way the surgeons practice may increase the overall value of spine care.

Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies., Objective: To characterize the association of annular defect width after lumbar discectomy with the risk of symptom recurrence and reoperation., Summary of Background Data: Large annular defect width after lumbar discectomy has been reported to increase risk of symptom recurrence. However, this association has not been evaluated in a systematic manner., Methods: A systematic literature search of MEDLINE and EMBASE was performed to identify comparative studies of large versus small annular defects following lumbar discectomy that reported symptom recurrence or reoperation rates. Main outcomes were reported with pooled odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of the meta-analysis findings., Results: After screening 696 records, we included data from 7 comparative studies involving 1653 lumbar discectomy patients, of whom 499 (30%) had large annular defects and 1154 (70%) had small annular defects. Methodological quality of studies was good overall. The median follow-up period was 2.9 years. The risk of symptom recurrence (OR = 2.5, 95% CI = 1.3-4.5, P = 0.004) and reoperation (OR = 2.3, 95% CI = 1.5-3.7, P < 0.001) was higher in patients with large versus small annular defects. Publication bias was not evident. The associations between annular defect width and risk of symptom recurrence and reoperation remained statistically significant in all sensitivity analyses., Conclusion: Annular defect width after lumbar discectomy is an under-reported modifier of patient outcome. Risk for symptom recurrence and reoperation is higher in patients with large versus small annular defects following lumbar discectomy., Level of Evidence: 2.

Study Design: Secondary analysis of data from a prospective multicenter observational study., Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the occurrence of surgical site infection (SSI) in patients with and without intrawound vancomycin application controlling for confounding factors associated with higher SSI after elective spine surgery., Summary of Background Data: SSI is a morbid and expensive complication associated with spine surgery. The application of intrawound vancomycin is rapidly emerging as a solution to reduce SSI following spine surgery. The impact of intrawound vancomycin has not been systematically studied in a well-designed multicenter study., Methods: Patients undergoing elective spine surgery over a period of 4 years at seven spine surgery centers across the United States were included in the study. Patients were dichotomized on the basis of whether intrawound vancomycin was applied. Outcomes were occurrence of SSI within postoperative 30 days and SSI that required return to the operating room (OR). Multivariable random-effect log-binomial regression analyses were conducted to determine the relative risk of having an SSI and an SSI with return to OR., Results: .: A total of 2056 patients were included in the analysis. Intrawound vancomycin was utilized in 47% (n = 966) of patients. The prevalence of SSI was higher in patients with no vancomycin use (5.1%) than those with use of intrawound vancomycin (2.2%). The risk of SSI was higher in patients in whom intrawound vancomycin was not used (relative risk (RR) -2.5, P < 0.001), increased number of levels exposed (RR -1.1, P = 0.01), and those admitted postoperatively to intensive care unit (ICU) (RR -2.1, P = 0.005). Patients in whom intrawound vancomycin was not used (RR -5.9, P < 0.001), increased number of levels were exposed (RR-1.1, P = 0.001), and postoperative ICU admission (RR -3.3, P < 0.001) were significant risk factors for SSI requiring a return to the OR., Conclusion: The intrawound application of vancomycin after posterior approach spine surgery was associated with a reduced risk of SSI and return to OR associated with SSI., Level of Evidence: 2.

Background: Comprehensive assessment of quality of care includes patient-reported outcomes, safety of care delivered, and patient satisfaction. The impact of the patient-reported Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores at baseline and 12 months on satisfaction with outcomes following spine surgery is not well documented., Purpose: This study aimed to determine the impact of patient disability (ODI) scores at baseline and 12 months on satisfaction with outcomes following surgery., Study Design: Analysis of prospectively collected longitudinal web-based multicenter data., Patient Sample: Patients undergoing elective surgery for degenerative lumbar disease were entered into a prospective multicenter registry., Outcome Measures: Primary outcome measures were ODI, North American Spine Society satisfaction (NASS) questionnaire., Methods: Baseline and 12-month ODI scores were recorded. Satisfaction at 12 months after surgery was measured using NASS questionnaire. Multivariable proportional odds logistic regression analysis was conducted to determine the impact of baseline and 12-month ODI on satisfaction with outcomes., Results: Of the total 5,443 patients, 64% (n=3,460) were satisfied at a level where surgery met their expectations (NASS level 1) at 12 months after surgery. After adjusting for all baseline and surgery-specific variables, the 12-month ODI score had the highest impact (Wald χ 2 =1,555, 86% of the total χ 2 ) on achieving satisfaction with outcomes compared with baseline ODI scores (Wald χ 2 =93, 5% of the total χ 2 ). The level of satisfaction decreases with increasing 12-month ODI score. Greater change in ODI is required to achieve a better satisfaction level when the patient starts with a higher baseline ODI score., Conclusion: Absolute 12-month ODI following surgery had a significant association on satisfaction with outcomes 12 months after surgery. Patients with higher baseline ODI required a larger change in ODI score to achieve satisfaction. No single measure can be used as a sole yardstick to measure quality of care after spine surgery. Satisfaction may be used in conjunction with baseline and 12-month ODI scores to provide an assessment of the quality of spine surgery provided in a patient centric fashion., (Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Readmissions are a significant economic burden on the health care system and increasingly being utilized as a metric of quality. Patients discharged to home vs an inpatient facility have different characteristics, which might influence the readmissions following spine surgery., Objective: To determine the effect of discharge disposition on readmission rates and causes of readmission after spine surgery., Methods: Patients enrolled in a prospective registry and undergoing elective spine surgery were analyzed. Readmissions (30 d), demographic, clinical variables, and baseline patient-reported outcomes were recorded. Patients were dichotomized as discharged home vs inpatient facility., Results: Of total 1631 patients, 1444 (89%) patients were discharged home and 187 (11%) discharged to an inpatient facility. Sixty-five (4%) patients were readmitted at 30 d. There was no significant difference in readmissions between patients discharged to a facility 10 (5%) vs home 55 (4%; P = .210). In a multivariable analysis, adjusting for all the comorbidities, the discharge destination was not associated with readmission within 30 d. The medical complications (80%) were the most common cause of readmission in those discharged to a facility. Patients discharged home had significantly higher readmissions related to surgical wound issues (67%; P = .034)., Conclusion: Despite the older age and higher comorbidities in patients discharged to an inpatient facility, the proportion of readmissions was comparable to those discharged home. Patients discharged home had a higher proportion of readmissions related to surgical wound complications and those discharged to facility had higher readmissions associated with medical complications. Understanding causes of readmission based on discharge destination may allow targeted intervention to reduce the readmission rates following spine surgery., (Copyright © 2017 by the Congress of Neurological Surgeons)

Purpose: Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) play an important role in postoperative pain management. However, their use in the setting of spine fusion surgery setting has long been a topic of controversy. In this review we examined relevant research, including in vivo, animal, and clinical human studies, with the aim of understanding the effect of NSAIDs on spinal fusion., Study Design/setting: Systematic review of study designs of all types from randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses to single-institution retrospective reviews., Methods: A search of PubMed and Embase was conducted using the keywords: "spine," "spinal fracture," NSAIDs, anti-inflammatory non-steroidal agents, bone, bone healing, fracture, fracture healing, yielding a total of 110 studies. Other 28 studies were identified by cross-referencing, resulting in total 138 studies., Results: There is no level I evidence from human studies regarding the use of NSAIDs on spinal fusion rates. The overall tone of the spine literature in the early 2000s was that NSAIDs increased the rate of non-union; however, nearly all human studies published after 2005 suggest that short-term (<2 weeks) postoperative use have no such effect. The dose dependency that is seen with a 2-week postoperative course is not present when NSAIDs are only used for 48 h after surgery., Conclusions: NSAID appear to have dose-dependent and duration-dependent effects on fusion rates. The short-term use of low-dose NSAIDs around the time of spinal fusion surgery is reasonable. Spine surgeons can consider the incorporation of NSAIDs into pain control regimens for spinal fusion patients with the goal of improving pain control and reducing the costs and complications associated with opioids.

OBJECTIVE Extended hospital length of stay (LOS), unplanned hospital readmission, and need for inpatient rehabilitation after elective spine surgery contribute significantly to the variation in surgical health care costs. As novel payment models shift the risk of cost overruns from payers to providers, understanding patient-level risk of LOS, readmission, and inpatient rehabilitation is critical. The authors set out to develop a grading scale that effectively stratifies risk of these costly events after elective surgery for degenerative lumbar pathologies. METHODS The Quality and Outcomes Database (QOD) registry prospectively enrolls patients undergoing surgery for degenerative lumbar spine disease. This registry was queried for patients who had undergone elective 1- to 3-level lumbar surgery for degenerative spine pathology. The association between preoperative patient variables and extended postoperative hospital LOS (LOS ≥ 7 days), discharge status (inpatient facility vs home), and 90-day hospital readmission was assessed using stepwise multivariate logistic regression. The Carolina-Semmes grading scale was constructed using the independent predictors for LOS (0-12 points), discharge to inpatient facility (0-18 points), and 90-day readmission (0-6 points), and its performance was assessed using the QOD data set. The performance of the grading scale was then confirmed separately after using it in 2 separate neurosurgery practice sites (Carolina Neurosurgery & Spine Associates [CNSA] and Semmes Murphey Clinic). RESULTS A total of 6921 patients were analyzed. Overall, 290 (4.2%) patients required extended LOS, 654 (9.4%) required inpatient facility care/rehabilitation on hospital discharge, and 474 (6.8%) were readmitted to the hospital within 90 days postdischarge. Variables that remained as independently associated with these unplanned events in multivariate analysis included age ≥ 70 years, American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Classification System class > III, Oswestry Disability Index score ≥ 70, diabetes, Medicare/Medicaid, nonindependent ambulation, and fusion. Increasing point totals in the Carolina-Semmes scale effectively stratified the incidence of extended LOS, discharge to facility, and readmission in a stepwise fashion in both the aggregate QOD data set and when subsequently applied to the CNSA/Semmes Murphey practice groups. CONCLUSIONS The authors introduce the Carolina-Semmes grading scale that effectively stratifies the risk of prolonged hospital stay, need for postdischarge inpatient facility care, and 90-day hospital readmission for patients undergoing first-time elective 1- to 3-level degenerative lumbar spine surgery. This grading scale may be helpful in identifying patients who may require additional resource utilization within a global period after surgery.

OBJECTIVE Quality and outcomes registry platforms lie at the center of many emerging evidence-driven reform models. Specifically, clinical registry data are progressively informing health care decision-making. In this analysis, the authors used data from a national prospective outcomes registry (the Quality Outcomes Database) to develop a predictive model for 12-month postoperative pain, disability, and quality of life (QOL) in patients undergoing elective lumbar spine surgery. METHODS Included in this analysis were 7618 patients who had completed 12 months of follow-up. The authors prospectively assessed baseline and 12-month patient-reported outcomes (PROs) via telephone interviews. The PROs assessed were those ascertained using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), EQ-5D, and numeric rating scale (NRS) for back pain (BP) and leg pain (LP). Variables analyzed for the predictive model included age, gender, body mass index, race, education level, history of prior surgery, smoking status, comorbid conditions, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, symptom duration, indication for surgery, number of levels surgically treated, history of fusion surgery, surgical approach, receipt of workers' compensation, liability insurance, insurance status, and ambulatory ability. To create a predictive model, each 12-month PRO was treated as an ordinal dependent variable and a separate proportional-odds ordinal logistic regression model was fitted for each PRO. RESULTS There was a significant improvement in all PROs (p < 0.0001) at 12 months following lumbar spine surgery. The most important predictors of overall disability, QOL, and pain outcomes following lumbar spine surgery were employment status, baseline NRS-BP scores, psychological distress, baseline ODI scores, level of education, workers' compensation status, symptom duration, race, baseline NRS-LP scores, ASA score, age, predominant symptom, smoking status, and insurance status. The prediction discrimination of the 4 separate novel predictive models was good, with a c-index of 0.69 for ODI, 0.69 for EQ-5D, 0.67 for NRS-BP, and 0.64 for NRS-LP (i.e., good concordance between predicted outcomes and observed outcomes). CONCLUSIONS This study found that preoperative patient-specific factors derived from a prospective national outcomes registry significantly influence PRO measures of treatment effectiveness at 12 months after lumbar surgery. Novel predictive models constructed with these data hold the potential to improve surgical effectiveness and the overall value of spine surgery by optimizing patient selection and identifying important modifiable factors before a surgery even takes place. Furthermore, these models can advance patient-focused care when used as shared decision-making tools during preoperative patient counseling.

OBJECTIVE Current costs associated with spine care are unsustainable. Productivity loss and time away from work for patients who were once gainfully employed contributes greatly to the financial burden experienced by individuals and, more broadly, society. Therefore, it is vital to identify the factors associated with return to work (RTW) after lumbar spine surgery. In this analysis, the authors used data from a national prospective outcomes registry to create a predictive model of patients' ability to RTW after undergoing lumbar spine surgery for degenerative spine disease. METHODS Data from 4694 patients who underwent elective spine surgery for degenerative lumbar disease, who had been employed preoperatively, and who had completed a 3-month follow-up evaluation, were entered into a prospective, multicenter registry. Patient-reported outcomes-Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), numeric rating scale (NRS) for back pain (BP) and leg pain (LP), and EQ-5D scores-were recorded at baseline and at 3 months postoperatively. The time to RTW was defined as the period between operation and date of returning to work. A multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression model, including an array of preoperative factors, was fitted for RTW. The model performance was measured using the concordance index (c-index). RESULTS Eighty-two percent of patients (n = 3855) returned to work within 3 months postoperatively. The risk-adjusted predictors of a lower likelihood of RTW were being preoperatively employed but not working at the time of presentation, manual labor as an occupation, worker's compensation, liability insurance for disability, higher preoperative ODI score, higher preoperative NRS-BP score, and demographic factors such as female sex, African American race, history of diabetes, and higher American Society of Anesthesiologists score. The likelihood of a RTW within 3 months was higher in patients with higher education level than in those with less than high school-level education. The c-index of the model's performance was 0.71. CONCLUSIONS This study presents a novel predictive model for the probability of returning to work after lumbar spine surgery. Spine care providers can use this model to educate patients and encourage them in shared decision-making regarding the RTW outcome. This evidence-based decision support will result in better communication between patients and clinicians and improve postoperative recovery expectations, which will ultimately increase the likelihood of a positive RTW trajectory.

Background: Healthcare resource utilization and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for intradural extramedullary (IDEM) spine tumors are not well reported., Objective: To analyze the PROs, costs, and resource utilization 1 year following surgical resection of IDEM tumors., Methods: Patients undergoing elective spine surgery for IDEM tumors and enrolled in a single-center, prospective, longitudinal registry were analyzed. Baseline and postoperative 1-year PROs were recorded. One-year spine-related direct and indirect healthcare resource utilization was assessed. One-year resource use was multiplied by unit costs based on Medicare national payment amounts (direct cost). Patient and caregiver workday losses were multiplied by the self-reported gross-of-tax wage rate (indirect cost)., Results: A total of 38 IDEM tumor patients were included in this analysis. There was significant improvement in quality of life (EuroQol-5D), disability (Oswestry and Neck Disability Indices), pain (Numeric rating scale pain scores for back/neck pain and leg/arm pain), and general physical and mental health (Short-form-12 health survey, physical and mental component scores) in both groups 1 year after surgery (P < .0001). Eighty-seven percent (n = 33) of patients were satisfied with surgery. The 1-year postdischarge resource utilization including healthcare visits, medication, and diagnostic cost was $4111 ± $3596. The mean total direct cost was $23 717 ± $7412 and indirect cost was $5544 ± $4336, resulting in total 1-year cost $29 177 ± $9314., Conclusion: Surgical resection of the IDEM provides improvement in patient-reported quality of life, disability, pain, general health, and satisfaction at 1 year following surgery. Furthermore, we report the granular costs of surgical resection and healthcare resource utilization in this population., (Copyright © 2016 by the Congress of Neurological Surgeons)

Background Context: Over the last decade, clinical investigators and biomedical industry groups have used significant resources to develop advanced technologies that enable less invasive spine fusions. These minimally invasive surgery (MIS) technologies often require increased expenditures by hospitals and payers. Although several small single center studies have suggested MIS technologies decrease surgical morbidity and reduce hospital stay, evidence documenting benefit from a patient perspective remains limited. Furthermore, MIS outcomes have yet to be evaluated from the perspective of multiple practice types representing the broad spectrum of US spine surgery., Purpose: This study aimed to examine a population of patients who underwent one- or two-level interbody lumbar fusion diagnosed with lumbar stenosis or Grade 1 spondylolisthesis in an observational, prospective national registry for the purposes of determining how MIS and traditional open technologies affect postsurgical and patient-reported outcomes (PROs)., Study Design/setting: This study used observational analysis of prospectively collected data., Patient Sample: The sample consisted of cases from the National Neurosurgery Quality and Outcomes Database (N 2 QOD)., Outcome Measures: Numeric rating scale for back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index, EuroQol-5D, return to work, and perioperative morbidity were the outcome measures., Methods: The N 2 QOD is a prospective PROs registry enrolling patients undergoing elective spine surgery from 60 hospitals in 27 US states via representative sampling. We analyzed the N 2 QOD aggregate dataset (2010-2014) to identify one- and two-level lumbar interbody fusion procedures performed for lumbar stenosis or Grade 1 spondylolisthesis with 12 months' follow-up where surgical instrumentation and implant types were clearly identified. Perioperative and 1-year outcomes were compared between cases performed with MIS enabling technologies versus traditional open technologies before and after propensity matching., Results: There were 467 (24%) patients who underwent elective interbody lumbar fusion using MIS enabling technologies whereas 1,480 (76%) underwent the procedure using traditional open technologies. The MIS patients were slightly healthier (American Society of Anesthesiologists grade), had private insurance more frequently, and underwent two-level fusion less frequently. Unmatched, the MIS cohort was associated with reduced blood loss, a 0.7-day reduction in mean length of hospital stay, and 5% reduced need for post-discharge inpatient rehabilitation, but equivalent 90-day safety measures. After propensity matching, the MIS cohort remained associated with reduced blood loss and a shorter length of stay for one-level fusion (p<.05) but had equivalent length of stay for two-level fusion. Outcomes in all other 90-day safety measures were similar. In both unadjusted and propensity-matched comparison, MIS versus open technologies were associated with equivalent return to work, patient-reported pain, physical disability, and quality of life at 3 and 12 months' follow-up., Conclusions: In a representative sampling registry of elective interbody lumbar spine fusion procedures spanning 27 US states, nearly a quarter of procedures performed from 2010 to 2014 used minimally invasive enabling technologies. Regardless of approach, interbody lumbar fusion was associated with significant and sustained improvements in all measured health domains. When used in everyday care by a wide spectrum of spine surgeons in non-research settings, the use of MIS technologies was associated with reduced intraoperative blood loss but only a half-day reduction in mean length of hospital stay for one-level fusions. Minimally invasive surgery was not associated with any improved perioperative safety measures or 12-month outcomes. Although MIS enabling technologies may increase some in-hospital care efficiencies, MIS clinical outcomes are similar to open surgery for patients undergoing one- and two-level interbody lumbar fusions., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Surgical site infection (SSI) following spine surgery is a morbid and expensive complication. The use of intrawound vancomycin is emerging as a solution to reduce SSI. The development of vancomycin-resistant pathogens is an understandable concern., Objective: To determine the occurrence of vancomycin-resistant SSI in patients with and without use of intrawound vancomycin., Methods: Patients undergoing elective spine surgery were dichotomized based on whether intrawound vancomycin was applied. Outcome was occurrence of SSI requiring return to the operating room within postoperative 90 days. The intrawound culture and vancomycin minimal inhibitory concentrations (MIC) were reviewed. Analyses were conducted to compare the pathogen profile and MIC for vancomycin in patients who received vancomycin and those who did not., Results: Of the total 2802 patients, 43% (n = 1215) had intrawound vancomycin application during the index surgery. The use of vancomycin was associated with significantly lower deep SSI rates (1.6% [n = 20] vs 2.5% [n = 40], P = .02). The occurrence of Staphylococcus aureus SSI was significantly lower in the patients who had application of intrawound vancomycin (32% vs 65%, P = .003). None of the patients who had application of intrawound vancomycin powder, and subsequently developed an S aureus SSI, demonstrated pathogens with resistance to vancomycin. All patients had MIC < 2 μg/mL, the vancomycin susceptibility threshold. The occurrence of gram-negative SSI (28% vs 7%) and culture negative fluid collection (16% vs 5%) was higher in the vancomycin cohort., Conclusions: The use of intrawound vancomycin during the index spine surgery was protective against SSI following spine surgery. The application of intrawound vancomycin during index surgery does not appear to create vancomycin-resistant organisms in the event of an SSI., (Copyright © 2017 by the Congress of Neurological Surgeons)

Purpose: With growing older population and increasing rates of cervical spinal surgery, it is vital to understand the value of cervical surgery in this population. We set forth to determine the cost utility following anterior cervical decompression and fusion (ACDF) for degenerative disease in older patients., Methods: Patients undergoing ACDF for degenerative diseases were enrolled into prospective longitudinal registry. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were recorded at baseline, 1-year, and 2-year postoperatively. Two-year medical resource utilization, missed work, and health-state values [quality-adjusted life years (QALYs)] were assessed to compute cost per QALY gained. Patients were dichotomized based on age: <65 years (younger) and ≥65 years (older) to compare the cost utility in these age groups., Results: Total 218 (87%) younger patients and 33 (13%) older patients who underwent ACDF were analyzed. Both the groups demonstrated a significant improvement in PROs 2-year following surgery. The older patients had a lower mean cumulative gain in QALYs compared to younger patients at 1 year (0.141 vs. 0.28, P = 0.05) and 2 years (0.211 vs. 0.424, P = 0.04). There was no significant difference in the mean total 2-year cost between older [$21,041 (95% CI $18,466-$23,616)] and younger [$22,669 (95% CI $$21,259-$24,079)] patients (P = 0.27). Two-year cost per QALY gained in older vs. younger patients was ($99,720/QALYs gained vs. ($53,464/QALYs gained, P = 0.68)., Conclusion: ACDF surgery provided a significant gain in health-state utility in older patients with degenerative cervical pathology, with a mean cumulative 2-year cost per QALY gained of $99,720/QALY. While older patients have a slightly higher cost utility compared to their younger counterparts, surgery in the older cohort does provide a significant improvement in pain, disability, and quality-of-life outcomes.

Background Context: Medical interventional modalities such as lumbar epidural steroid injections (LESIs) are often used in the setting of lumbar spine disorders where other conservative measures have failed. Concomitant depression can lead to worse outcomes in lumbar spine pathology. A number of studies have demonstrated an association between preoperative depression and poor outcomes following surgery, but the effect of depression on outcomes following medical interventional modalities is poorly understood., Purpose: To evaluate the differences in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) between depressed and non-depressed patients undergoing LESI., Study Design/setting: This study is an analysis of a prospective longitudinal registry database at a single academic institution., Patient Sample: All patients undergoing LESI from 2012 to 2014 were eligible for enrollment into a prospective, web-based registry. Eligible patients had radicular pain, correlative imaging findings of degenerative pathology, and failed 6 weeks of conservative care., Outcome Measures: The PROs measured included the (1) numeric rating scale for back pain (NRS-BP), (2) numeric rating scale for leg pain (NRS-LP), (3) disease-specific physical disability-Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and (4) preference-based health status-EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D)., Materials and Methods: Patients who met the inclusion criteria underwent LESI. Patient-reported outcomes were collected at baseline and at 12 months following treatment. Based on previously validated values for the Zung Depression Scale (ZDS) as a screening tool for depression, patients were dichotomized into non-depressed (ZDS score ≤33) and depressed (ZDS score >33). The PRO change scores from baseline to 12 months were calculated. The mean absolute and change scores between the groups were compared using Student t test. Multivariable linear regression analysis for ODI, EQ-5D, NRS-LP, and NRS-BP was performed., Results: A total of 161 patients with complete 12-month follow-up were included. Seventy-one patients (44%) were classified as depressed and 90 patients (56%) were classified as non-depressed. The mean baseline PRO scores were significantly worse in depressed patients compared with non-depressed patients: ODI (p<.001), NRS-BP (p=.013), NRS-LP (p<.001), and EQ-5D (p=.001). The mean absolute scores at 12 months were significantly lower in the depressed versus non-depressed patients: ODI (p<.001), NRS-BP (p=.001), NRS-LP (p=.05), and EQ-5D (p=.003). However, there was no difference in mean change scores observed at 12 months between the depressed and non-depressed cohorts: ODI (p=.42), NRS-BP (p=.31), NRS-LP (p=.25), EQ-5D (p=.14). Adjusting for pre-procedure variables, the higher ZDS score was associated with higher disability (ODI) at 12 months., Conclusions: Depression led to worse absolute scores for PROs and is associated with higher disability following LESI. However, patients with depressive symptoms can expect similar improvement in PROs at 12 months., (Copyright © 2016. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: As publically promoted by all stakeholders in health care reform, prospective outcomes registry platforms lie at the center of all current evidence-driven value-based models., Objective: To demonstrate the variability in outcomes and cost at population level and individual patient level for patients undergoing spine surgery for degenerative diseases., Methods: Retrospective analysis of prospective longitudinal spine registry data was conducted. Baseline and postoperative 1-year patient-reported outcomes were recorded. Previously published minimal clinically important difference for Oswestry Disability Index (14.9) was used. Back-related resource utilization and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were assessed. Variations in outcomes and cost were analyzed at population level and at the individual patient level., Results: A total of 1454 patients were analyzed. There was significant improvement in patient-reported outcomes at postoperative 1 year ( P < .0001). For patients demonstrating health benefit at population level, 12.5%, n = 182 of patients experienced no gain from surgery and 38%, n = 554 failed to achieve minimal clinically important difference. Mean 1-year QALY-gained was 0.29; 18% of patients failed to report gain in QALY. For patients with 2-year follow-up, surgery resulted in 0.62 QALY-gained at average direct cost of $28 953. A wide variation in both QALY-gained and cost was observed., Conclusion: Spine treatments that on average are cost-effective may have wide variability in value at the individual patient level. The variability demonstrated here represents an opportunity, through registries, to identify specific care that may be less effective, and refine patient-specific care delivery and indications to drive overall group-level treatment value. Understanding value of spine care at an individualized as well as population level will allow clinicians, and eventually payers, to better target resources for improving care for nonresponders, ultimately driving up the average health for the whole population., (Copyright © 2016 by the Congress of Neurological Surgeons)

Study Design: Analysis of prospectively collected longitudinal web-based registry data., Objective: To determine relative validity, responsiveness, and minimum clinically important difference (MCID) thresholds in patients undergoing surgery for intradural extramedullary (IDEM) spinal tumors., Summary of Background Data: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are vital in establishing the value of care in spinal pathology. There is limited availability of prospective, quality studies reporting PROs for IDEM spine tumors., Methods: . A total of 40 patients were analyzed. Baseline, postoperative 3-month, and 12-month PROs were recorded: Oswestry Disability Index or Neck disability Index (ODI/NDI), Quality of life EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D), Short Form-12 (SF-12), Numeric Rating Scale (NRS)-pain scores. Responders were defined as those who achieved a level of improvement one or two, after surgery, on health transition index (HTI) of SF-36. Receiver-operating characteristic curves were generated to assess the validity of PROs, and the difference between standardized response means (SRMs) in responders versus nonresponders was utilized to determine the relative responsiveness of each PRO measure. MCID thresholds were derived using previously reported minimal detectable change approach., Results: A significant improvement across all PROs at 3-months and 12-months follow up was noted. The derived MCID thresholds were 13.9 points: ODI/NDI, 0.14 quality adjusted life years: EQ-5D, 2.8 points: SF-12PCS and 10.7 points: SF-12MCS, 1.9 points: NRS-back/neck pain, and 1.8 points: NRS-leg/arm pain. SF-12PCS was most accurate discriminator of meaningful improvement (area under the curve, AUC-0.83) and most responsive (SRM-1.36) to postoperative improvement. EQ-5D, ODI/NDI, NRS-pain scores were all accurate discriminator (AUC-0.7-0.8) and responsive measures (0.97-0.67) of meaningful postoperative improvement. SF-12MCS was neither a valid discriminator (AUC-0.48) nor a responsive measure (SRM: -1.5) of outcome., Conclusion: Surgical resection of IDEM spinal tumors provides significant and sustained improvement in quality of life, general health, disability, and pain at 12-month after surgery. The surgically resected IDEM-specific clinically meaningful thresholds are reported. All the PROs reported in this study can accurately discriminate responders and nonresponder based on SF-36 HTI index except for SF-12 MCS., Level of Evidence: 3.

Study Design: A prospective cohort study., Objective: To evaluate whether an annular closure device could be implanted safely to reduce same-level recurrent disk herniation, or attenuate disk height loss and improve the outcome after lumbar discectomy., Summary of Background Data: Same-level recurrent disk herniation, disk height loss, and progressive degeneration are common complications and sequelae after lumbar discectomy. Techniques to reduce these consequences may improve outcomes., Methods: Forty-six consecutive patients undergoing lumbar discectomy for single-level herniated disk at 2 institutions were followed prospectively with clinical and radiographic evaluations at 6 weeks and 3, 6, 12, and 24 months (control cohort). A second consecutive cohort of 30 patients undergoing 31 lumbar discectomies with implantation of an annular closure device was followed similarly. Incidence of recurrent disk herniation, disk height loss, the leg and back pain visual analog scale (VAS), and the Oswestry Disability Index were assessed at each follow-up., Results: Cohorts were well matched at baseline. By 2 years of follow-up, symptomatic recurrent same-level disk herniation occurred in 3 (6.5%) patients in the control cohort versus 0 (0%) patients in the annular repair cohort (P=0.27). A trend of greater preservation of disk height was observed in the annular repair versus the control cohort 3 months (7.9 vs. 7.27 mm, P=0.08), 6 months (7.81 vs. 7.18 mm, P=0.09), and 12 months (7.63 vs. 6.9 mm, P=0.06) postoperatively. The annular closure cohort reported less leg pain (VAS-LP: 5 vs. 16, P<0.01), back pain (VAS-BP: 13 vs. 22, P<0.05), and disability (Oswestry Disability Index: 16 vs. 22, P<0.05) 1 year postoperatively., Conclusions: Implantation of a novel annular repair device was associated with greater maintenance of disk height and improved 1-year leg pain, back pain, and low-back disability. Recurrent disk herniation did not occur in any patient after annular repair. Closure of annular defect after lumbar discectomy may help preserve the physiological disk function and prevent long-term disk height loss and associated back and leg pain.

Background: Obese patients have greater comorbidities along with higher risk of complications and greater costs after spine surgery, which may result in increased cost and lower quality of life compared with their non-obese counterparts., Purpose: The aim of the present study was to determine cost-utility following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) in obese patients., Study Design: This study analyzed prospectively collected data., Patient Sample: Patients undergoing elective ACDF for degenerative cervical pathology at a single academic institution were included in the study., Outcome Measures: Cost and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were the outcome measures., Methods: One- and two-year medical resource utilization, missed work, and health state values (QALYs) were assessed. Two-year resource use was multiplied by unit costs based on Medicare national payment amounts (direct cost). Patient and caregiver workday losses were multiplied by the self-reported gross-of-tax wage rate (indirect cost). Total cost (direct+indirect) was used to compute cost per QALY gained. Patients were defined as obese for body mass index (BMI) ≥35 based on the WHO definition of class II obesity. A subgroup analysis was conducted in morbidly obese patients (BMI≥40)., Results: There were significant improvements in pain (neck pain or arm pain), disability (Neck Disability Index), and quality of life (EuroQol-5D and Short Form-12) at 2 years after surgery (p<.001). There was no significant difference in post-discharge health-care resource utilization, direct cost, indirect cost, and total cost between obese and non-obese patients at postoperative 1-year and 2-year follow-up. Mean 2-year direct cost for obese patients was $19,225±$8,065 and $17,635±$6,413 for non-obese patients (p=.14). There was no significant difference in the mean total 2-year cost between obese ($23,144±$9,216) and non-obese ($22,183±$10,564) patients (p=.48). Obese patients had a lower mean cumulative gain in QALYs versus non-obese patients at 2-years (0.34 vs. 0.42, p=.32). Two-year cost-utility in obese ($68,070/QALY) versus non-obese patients ($52,816/QALY) was not significantly different (p=.11). Morbidly obese patients had lower QALYs gained (0.17) and higher cost per QALYs gained ($138,094/QALY) at 2 years., Conclusions: Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion provided a significant gain in health state utility in obese patients, with a mean 2-year cost-utility of $68,070 per QALYs gained, which can be considered moderately cost-effective. Morbidly obese patients had lower cost-effectiveness; however, surgery does provide a significant improvement in outcomes. Obesity, and specifically morbid obesity, should to be taken into consideration as physician and hospital reimbursements move toward a bundled model., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Despite increasing use and potential benefits of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) compared with posterolateral spinal fusion (PSF), previous studies have not documented improved clinical outcomes with TLIF vs PSF., Objective: To compare the outcomes of TLIF with PSF in patients with spondylolisthesis, spinal stenosis, and adjacent level disease., Methods: The National Neurosurgical Quality and Outcomes Database was queried for patients who had a lumbar fusion. Eighty-five percent (1722) of enrolled cases had 12-month follow-up data. There were 306 PSF patients and 1230 TLIF patients. PSF cases within each diagnostic subgroup were propensity-matched to patients who had TLIF. Sufficient propensity-matched controls were available for patients with spondylolisthesis (109), spinal stenosis (63), and adjacent segment disease (47)., Results: Operating room time, estimated blood loss, and length of stay were similar between PSF and TLIF in all 3 propensity-matched groups. In the spondylolisthesis group, there was a greater improvement in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) with TLIF vs PSF at 3 months (19.4 vs 26.0, P = .009), 12 months (20.8 vs 29.3, P = .001), and in percentage reaching minimal clinically important difference at 12 months (80% vs 62%, P = .007). There were no differences in ODI improvement between PSF and TLIF in the stenosis or adjacent segment disease groups., Conclusion: TLIF generated more favorable ODI outcomes than PSF for patients with spondylolisthesis, but not for patients with spinal stenosis or adjacent segment disease. There was also equivalence in operating room time and estimated blood loss between TLIF and PSF, potentially altering the long-standing assumption that PSF is a simpler procedure., Abbreviations: ASA, American Society of AnesthesiologistsEBL, estimated blood lossEQ-5D, EuroQOL-5DHRQOL, health-related quality of lifeMCID, minimal clinically important differenceNQOD, National Neurosurgery Quality and Outcomes DatabaseNRS, numeric rating scaleODI, Oswestry Disability IndexOR, operating roomPSF, posterolateral spinal fusionTLIF, transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.

Purpose: To investigate the relationship between lumbar facet fluid and dynamic instability in degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS), as well as the relationship between facet fluid and patient-reported outcomes following a posterior lumbar fusion., Methods: We analyzed consecutive patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis undergoing single level posterior lumbar fusion from December 2010 to January 2013 at a single academic institution. We investigated the relationship between fluid in the facet joint as measured on axial MRI and the presence of dynamic instability. We investigated the impact of facet fluid, Modic changes, and dynamic instability on patient-reported outcomes., Results: There was a significant association between the amount of facet joint fluid and the presence of dynamic instability (p = 0.03); as facet fluid increases, the probability of dynamic instability also increases. For every 1 mm of facet fluid, there was a 41.6 % increase (95 % CI 1.8-97) in the odds of dynamic instability. A facet fluid amount less than 0.5 mm gave a 90 % probability that there was no dynamic instability. The presence of facet fluid and dynamic instability were associated with achieving minimal clinical important difference (MCID) in low back pain following lumbar fusion (p = 0.04 and 0.05, respectively)., Conclusion: Facet joint fluid is associated with the presence of dynamic instability in DS. The presence of facet fluid and dynamic instability may predict increased likelihood of achieving MCID for improvement in back pain following posterior lumbar fusion.

Background: Lumbar epidural steroid injection (LESI) is a valuable therapeutic option when administered to the appropriate patient, for the appropriate disease process, at the appropriate time. There is considerable variability in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after LESI, creating uncertainty as to who will benefit from the therapy and who will not., Purpose: We set out to identify patient attributes, which are important predictors for the achievement of a minimum clinically important difference (MCID) in the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) after LESI., Study Design: A prospective cohort study was carried out., Patient Sample: A total of 239 consecutive patients undergoing LESI for back-related disability, back pain (BP), and leg pain (LP) associated with degenerative pathology comprised the patient sample., Outcome Measures: Baseline and 3-month patient self-reported ODI, numeric rating scale-BP and LP, Euro-Qol-5D, and Short Form (SF)-12 scores were recorded., Methods: A total of 239 consecutive patients undergoing LESI for degenerative pathology over a period of 2 years who were enrolled into a prospective web-based registry were included in the study. Using the previously reported anchor-based approach, an MCID threshold of 7.1% was established for ODI after LESI. Each enrolled patient was then dichotomized as a "responder" (achieving MCID) or a "non-responder." Multiple logistic regression analysis was then performed, with the achievement of MCID serving as the outcome of interest. Candidate variables included in the regression analyses were age, gender, employment, insurance type, smoking status, preoperative ambulation, preinjection narcotic use, comorbidities, predominant LP or BP symptoms, symptom duration, diagnosis, number of levels, prior surgery, baseline PROs, type of stenosis (central, lateral recesses, or foraminal), injection route (transforaminal, interlaminar, or caudal), and number of injections. Subsequently, we also randomly selected 80% of the patients to serve as the training data for a multiple logistic regression model. Once this predictive model was built, it was validated using the remaining 20% of patients., Results: There were 124 (62%) patients who achieved MCID for ODI. The existence of central stenosis (p=.006), TF or IL injection route (p=.02) compared with caudal epidural steroid injection, higher baseline ODI (p=.00001), and a diagnosis of disc herniation (p=.02) increase the odds of achieving MCID for ODI at 3 months. Symptom duration for over a year (p=.006), prior surgery (p=.08), and preinjection anxiety (p=.001) decrease the odds of achieving MCID. The area under the curve (AUC) for our predictive model's receiver-operator characteristic was 0.81 when using the 80% training data set, and the AUC was 0.72 when using the 20% validation data., Conclusion: We have identified patient attributes that are important predictors for the achievement of MCID in ODI 3 months after LESI. The use of these attributes, in the form of a predictive model for LESI efficacy, has the potential to improve decision making around LESI. Spine care providers can use the information to gain insight into the likelihood that a particular patient will experience a meaningful benefit from LESI., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background Context: In cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM), cervical sagittal alignment (CSA) is associated with disease severity. Increased kyphosis and C2-C7 sagittal vertical axis (SVA) correlate with worse myelopathy and poor outcomes. However, when alignment is lordotic, it is unknown whether these associations persist., Purpose: The study aimed to investigate the associations between CSA parameters and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) following posterior decompression and fusion for CSM when baseline lordosis is maintained., Study Design/setting: This is an analysis of a prospective surgical cohort at a single academic institution., Patient Sample: The sample includes adult patients undergoing primary cervical laminectomy and fusion for CSM over a 3-year period., Outcome Measures: The PROs included EuroQol-5D, Short-Form-12 (SF-12) physical composite (PCS) and mental composite scales (MCS), Neck Disability Index, and the modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association scores. Radiographic CSA parameters measured included C1-C2 Cobb, C2-C7 Cobb, C1-C7 Cobb, C2-C7 SVA, C1-C7 SVA, and T1 slope., Methods: The PROs were recorded at baseline and at 3 and 12 months postoperatively. The CSA parameters were measured on standing radiographs in the neutral position at baseline and 3 months. Wilcoxon rank test was used to test for changes in PROs and CSA parameters, and Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated for CSA parameters and PROs preoperatively and at 12 months. No external sources of funding were used for this work., Results: There were 45 patients included with an average age of 63 years who underwent posterior decompression and fusion of 3.7±1.3 levels. Significant improvements were found in all PROs except SF-12 MCS (p=.06). Small but statistically significant changes were found in C2-C7 Cobb (mean change: +3.6°; p=.03) and C2-C7 SVA (mean change: +3 mm; p=.01). At baseline, only C2-C7 SVA associated with worse SF-12 PCS scores (r=-0.34, p=.02). Postoperatively, there were no associations found between PROs and any CSA parameters. Similarly, no CSA parameters were associated with changes in PROs., Conclusions: Although creating more lordosis and decreasing SVA are associated with improved myelopathy and outcomes in patients with kyphosis, our study did not find such associationsin patients with lordosis undergoing posterior laminectomy and fusion for CSM. This suggests that any amount of lordosis may be sufficient., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

OBJECTIVE Prospective longitudinal outcomes registries are at the center of evidence-driven health care reform. Obtaining real-world outcomes data at 12 months can be costly and challenging. In the present study, the authors analyzed whether 3-month outcome measurements sufficiently represent 12-month outcomes for patients with degenerative lumbar disease undergoing surgery. METHODS Data from 3073 patients undergoing elective spine surgery for degenerative lumbar disease were entered into a prospective multicenter registry (N(2)QOD). Baseline, 3-month, and 12-month follow-up Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores were recorded. The absolute differences between actual 12- and 3-month ODI scores was evaluated. Additionally, the authors analyzed the absolute difference between actual 12-month ODI scores and a model-predicted 12-month ODI score (the model used patients' baseline characteristics and actual 3-month scores). The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for ODI of 12.8 points and the substantial clinical benefit (SCB) for ODI of 18.8 points were used based on the previously published values. The concordance rate of achieving MCID and SCB for ODI at 3-and 12-months was computed. RESULTS The 3-month ODI scores differed from 12-month scores by an absolute difference of 11.9 ± 10.8, and predictive modeling estimations of 12-month ODI scores differed from actual 12-month scores by a mean (± SD) of 10.7 ± 9.0 points (p = 0.001). Sixty-four percent of patients (n = 1982) achieved an MCID for ODI at 3 months in comparison with 67% of patients (n = 2088) by 12 months; 51% (n = 1731) and 61% (n = 1860) of patients achieved SCB for ODI at 3 months and 12 months, respectively. Almost 20% of patients had ODI scores that varied at least 20 points (the point span of an ODI functional category) between actual 3- and 12-month values. In the aggregate analysis of achieving MCID, 77% of patients were concordant and 23% were discordant in achieving or not achieving MCID at 3 and 12 months. The discordance rates of achieving or not achieving MCID for ODI were in the range of 19% to 27% for all diagnoses and treatments (decompression with and without fusion). The positive and negative predictive value of 3-months ODI to predict 12-month ODI was 86% and 60% for MCID and 82% and 67% for SCB. CONCLUSIONS Based on their findings, the authors conclude the following: 1) Predictive methods for functional outcome based on early patient experience (i.e., baseline and/or 3-month data) should be used to help evaluate the effectiveness of procedures in patient populations, rather than serving as a proxy for long-term individual patient experience. 2) Prospective longitudinal registries need to span at least 12 months to determine the effectiveness of spine care at the individual patient and practitioner level.

Study Design: Retrospective review., Objective: Determine clinical outcomes and cost utility of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for the treatment of adjacent segment disease (ASD)., Summary of Background Data: The incidence of symptomatic ASD after ACDF has been estimated to occur in up to 26% of patients. Commonly, these patients will undergo an additional ACDF procedure. However, there are currently no studies available that adequately describe the clinical outcomes or cost utility of performing ACDF for ASD., Methods: A retrospective review of 40 patients undergoing ACDF for ASD was performed. Baseline and 2-year neck and arm pain (NRS-NP, NRS-AP), neck disability index (NDI), physical and mental quality of life (SF-12 PCS & MCS), and Zung depression score (ZDS) were assessed. Two-year total neck-related medical resource utilization, amount of missed work, and health-state values were determined. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were calculated from EQ-5D assessments with US valuation. Comprehensive costs (indirect, direct, and total cost) and the value (cost-per-QALY gained) of performing ACDF for ASD were assessed., Results: Performing ACDF to treat ASD resulted in significant improvements (P<0.05) in NRS-NP, NRS-AP, NDI, SF-12 PCS, and ZDS outcome measures. Patient-reported health states also significantly improved, with a mean cumulative 2-year gain of 0.54 QALYs. The mean 2-year cost of surgery was $32,616 (direct cost: $25,391; indirect cost: $7225). ACDF for the treatment of ASD was associated with a mean 2-year cost per QALY gained of $60,526., Conclusions: Performing ACDF for ASD resulted in significant improvements in patient pain, disability, and quality of life. Further, the mean 2-year cost-per-QALY was determined to be $60,526, which suggests surgical intervention to be cost effective. This study is the first to provide evidence that performing an ACDF for ASD is both clinically and cost effective.

Background Context: Pelvic fixation improves fusion and stability for thoracolumbar constructs that extend across the L5-S1 junction. No patient-reported outcomes have been published to evaluate patients' functional outcomes following these procedures compared with pelvis-sparing procedures., Purpose: The goal of this study is to identify the effect of pelvic fixation on both objective and patient-reported outcomes., Study Design/setting: This was a retrospective, matched cohort study., Patient Sample: The sample comprised adult patients undergoing spine surgery at our institution who had complete 1-year postoperative follow-up., Outcome Measures: Patient-reported outcome instruments (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI], Short-Form 12-item survey, and EuroQol-5D) and objective measures (length of hospital stay, discharge disposition, postoperative complications, and readmission rates) were considered., Methods: We identified patients in our outcomes registry undergoing instrumented spinal fusion involving the pelvis between October 2010 and May 2014 who had 1-year follow-up data. Nearest-neighbor 1:1 matched controls were identified using propensity scoring from the cohort of patients undergoing any spinal procedure which extended caudally to the lumbar spine or sacrum. Objective and patient-reported outcomes were compared between cases and controls., Results: There were 44 patients who underwent spinal procedures involving the pelvis and had 1-year follow-up data. An equal number of controls were identified and had similar baseline demographic and clinical characteristics. No significant differences were found among operative variables or objective complication rates. Patients undergoing pelvic fixation had moderately greater improvement at 3 months as measured by ODI, but this difference was not present at 1 year. Other patient-reported outcome measures were equivocal between groups., Conclusions: This matched cohort study demonstrates that inclusion of the pelvis in spinal hardware constructs is not associated with increased complications and may slightly improve patient disability at 1 year. Given that pelvic fixation may reduce L5-S1 breakdown and improve biomechanics, surgeons should more readily include the pelvis in instrumented fusion procedures., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

OBJECTIVE In an era of escalating health care costs and pressure to improve efficiency and cost of care, ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) have emerged as lower-cost options for many surgical therapies. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is one of the most prevalent spine surgeries performed, and the frequency of its performance is rapidly increasing as the aging population grows. Although ASCs offer significant cost advantages over hospital-based surgical centers, concern over the safety of outpatient ACDF has slowed its adoption. The authors intended to 1) determine the safety of the first 1000 consecutive ACDF surgeries performed in their outpatient ASC, and 2) compare the safety of these outpatient ACDFs with that of consecutive ACDFs performed during the same time period in the hospital setting. METHODS A total of 1000 consecutive patients who underwent ACDF in an ACS (outpatient ACDF) and 484 consecutive patients who underwent ACDF at Vanderbilt University Hospital (inpatient ACDF) from 2006 to 2013 were included in this retrospective study of patients' medical records. Data were collected on patient demographics, comorbidities, operative details, and perioperative and 90-day morbidity. Perioperative morbidity and hospital readmission were compared between the outpatient and inpatient ACDF groups. RESULTS Of the first 1000 outpatient ACDF cases performed in the authors' ASC, 629 (62.9%) were 1-level and 365 (36.5%) were 2-level ACDFs. Mean patient age was 49.5 ± 8.6, and 484 (48.4%) were males. All patients were observed postoperatively at the ASC postanesthesia care unit (PACU) for 4 hours before being discharged home. Eight patients (0.8%) were transferred from the surgery center to the hospital postoperatively (for pain control [n = 3], chest pain and electrocardiogram changes [n = 2], intraoperative CSF leak [n = 1], postoperative hematoma [n = 1], and profound postoperative weakness and surgical reexploration [n = 1]). No perioperative deaths occurred. The 30-day hospital readmission rate was 2.2%. All 90-day surgical morbidity was similar between outpatient and inpatient cohorts for both 1-level and 2-level ACDFs. CONCLUSIONS An analysis of 1000 consecutive patients who underwent ACDF in an outpatient setting demonstrates that surgical complications occur at a low rate (1%) and can be appropriately diagnosed and managed in a 4-hour ASC PACU window. Comparison with an inpatient ACDF surgery cohort demonstrated similar results, highlighting that ACDF can be safely performed in the outpatient ambulatory surgery setting without compromising surgical safety. In an effort to decrease costs of care, surgeons can safely perform 1- and 2-level ACDFs in an ASC environment.

OBJECTIVE Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) has become the most commonly used fusion technique for lumbar degenerative disorders. This suggests an expectation of better clinical outcomes with this technique, but this has not been validated consistently. How surgical variables and choice of health utility measures drive the cost-effectiveness of TLIF relative to posterolateral fusion (PSF) has not been established. The authors used health utility values derived from Short Form-6D (SF-6D) and EQ-5D and different cost-effectiveness thresholds to evaluate the relative cost-effectiveness of TLIF compared with PSF. METHODS From the National Neurosurgery Quality and Outcomes Database (N(2)QOD), 101 patients with spondylolisthesis who underwent PSF were propensity matched to patients who underwent TLIF. Health-related quality of life measures and perioperative parameters were compared. Because health utility values derived from the SF-6D and EQ-5D questionnaires have been shown to vary in patients with low-back pain, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were derived from both measures. On the basis of these matched cases, a sensitivity analysis for the relative cost per QALY of TLIF versus PSF was performed in a series of cost-assumption models. RESULTS Operative time, blood loss, hospital stay, and 30-day and 90-day readmission rates were similar for the TLIF and PSF groups. Both TLIF and PSF significantly improved back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores, and EQ-5D and SF-6D scores at 3 and 12 months postoperatively. At 12 months postoperatively, patients who had undergone TLIF had greater improvements in mean ODI scores (30.4 vs 21.1, p = 0.001) and mean SF-6D scores (0.16 vs 0.11, p = 0.001) but similar improvements in mean EQ-5D scores (0.25 vs 0.22, p = 0.415) as patients treated with PSF. At a cost per QALY threshold of $100,000 and using SF-6D-based QALYs, the authors found that TLIF would be cost-prohibitive compared with PSF at a surgical cost of $4830 above that of PSF. However, with EQ-5D-based QALYs, TLIF would become cost-prohibitive at an increased surgical cost of $2960 relative to that of PSF. With the 2014 US per capita gross domestic product of $53,042 as a more stringent cost-effectiveness threshold, TLIF would become cost-prohibitive at surgical costs $2562 above that of PSF with SF-6D-based QALYs or at a surgical cost exceeding that of PSF by $1570 with EQ-5D-derived QALYs. CONCLUSIONS As with all cost-effectiveness studies, cost per QALY depended on the measure of health utility selected, durability of the intervention, readmission rates, and the accuracy of the cost assumptions.

Study Design Retrospective cohort study. Objective We sought to assess the predictive value of preoperative depression and health state on 1-year quality-of-life outcomes after anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion (ACDF). Methods We analyzed 106 patients who underwent ACDF. All patients had either bilateral or unilateral cervical radiculopathy. Preoperative and 1-year postoperative health outcomes were assessed based on the visual analog scale, Pain Disability Questionnaire (PDQ), Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), and EuroQol-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaire. Univariable and multivariate regression analyses were performed to assess for preoperative predictors of 1-year change in health status according to the EQ-5D. Results Compared with preoperative health states, the ACDF cohort showed statistically significant improved PDQ (78.5 versus 57.9), PHQ-9 (9.7 versus 5.3), and EQ-5D (0.55 versus 0.68) scores at 1 year postoperatively and surpassed the minimum clinically important difference for the EQ-5D of 0.1 units (all p ≤ 0.01). Multivariate linear regression indicated that anxiolytic use and higher EQ-5D preoperative scores were associated with less 1-year postoperative improvement in health status. Although not statistically significant, clinically important effects of preoperative depression, as measured by the PHQ-9, were observed on postoperative QOL outcome (-0.006, 95% confidence interval -0.014 to 0.001). Conclusions Of patients who undergo ACDF with similar preoperative QOL health states, those with a greater degree of depression may have lower improvements in postoperative QOL compared with those with less depression. Patients with anxiety and better preoperative health states also attain less 1-year QOL improvements.

Purpose: To investigate whether obesity is associated with worse patient-reported outcomes following surgery for degenerative lumbar conditions., Methods: We evaluated consecutive patients undergoing elective lumbar laminectomy or laminectomy with fusion for degenerative lumbar conditions. The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D), Short-Form 12 (SF-12), and NASS patient satisfaction were utilized. Chi-square tests and student t test assessed the association of obesity with PROs. Multivariate regression controlled for age, sex, smoking status, anxiety, depression, revision, preoperative narcotic use, payer status, and diabetes., Results: A total of 602 patients were included. All PROs improved significantly in both groups. BMI ≥35 was associated with increased ODI at baseline (50.6 vs. 47.2 %, p = 0.012) and 12 months (30.5 vs. 25.7 %, p = 0.005). There was no difference in ODI change scores (21.2 vs. 19.4 %, p = 0.32). With multivariate analysis, BMI ≥35 was not predictive of worse ODI at 12 months (correlation coefficient 1.23, 95 % CI -0.225 to 2.676.) There was no significant difference between groups in percentage of patients achieving the minimum clinically important difference for ODI (59.6 vs. 64 %, p = 0.46) or patient satisfaction (80.5 vs. 78.9 %, p = 0.63)., Conclusions: Body mass index ≥35 is associated with worse baseline and 12-month PROs, however, there was no difference in change scores across BMI groups. Controlling for important co-variables, BMI greater than 35 was not an independent predictor of worse PROs at 12 months.

Study Design: Prospective cohort analysis., Objective: To assess the effect of preoperative narcotic use on the incidence of 30- and 90-day postoperative complications, as well as length of hospital stay (LOS) in patients undergoing spine surgery., Summary of Background Data: Previous work has associated an increased incidence of complications and length of stay following surgery in patients with increased preoperative narcotic use. Despite this and recent national attention highlighting the negative effects of narcotics, they remain commonly used for the management of pain in patients undergoing spine surgery., Materials and Methods: A total of 583 patients undergoing spine surgery for a structural lesion were evaluated. Self-reported preoperative narcotic consumption was obtained and converted to morphine equivalents at the initial preoperative visit. LOS was recorded upon discharge and presence/type of a postoperative complication within 30/90 days was obtained. A multivariable logistic and linear regression analysis was performed for the incidence of complications and length of stay controlling for clinically important covariates., Results: Narcotic use was not associated with 30- or 90-day complications; however, smoking status was significantly associated with 30-day complications. Increased preoperative narcotic use was significantly associated with increased LOS, as was age, type of surgery, and depression., Conclusions: Increased preoperative narcotic use and depression are associated with increased LOS in patients undergoing spine surgery. We calculated that for every 100 morphine equivalents a patient is taking preoperatively; their stay is extended 1.1 days. Narcotic use was not associated with 30- or 90-day postoperative complications. As reimbursement is bundled before surgery, providing interventions for patients with treatable causes for increased length of stay can save cost overall.

Purpose: Evaluate the factors associated with postoperative ICU admission in patients undergoing surgical management of degenerative lumbar spine disease., Methods: Patients undergoing surgery for degenerative lumbar spine disease were enrolled into a prospective registry over a 2-year period. Preoperative variables (age, gender, ASA grade, ODI%, CAD, HTN, MI, CHF, DM, BMI, depression, anxiety) and surgical variables (instrumentation, arthrodesis, estimated blood loss, length of surgery) were collected prospectively. Postoperative ICU admission details were retrospectively determined from the electronic medical record. Student's t test (continuous variables) and Chi-square test (categorical variables) were used to determine the association of each preoperative and surgical variable with ICU admission., Results: 808 Patients (273 laminectomy, 535 laminectomy and fusion) were evaluated. Forty-one (5.1%) patients were found to have postoperative ICU admissions. Reasons for admission included blood loss (12.2%), cardiac (29.3%), respiratory (19.5%), neurologic (31.7%), and other (7.3%). For preoperative variables, female gender (P < 0.001), history of CAD (P = 0.003), history of MI (P = 0.008), history of CHF (P = 0.001), age (P = 0.025), and ASA grade (P = 0.008) were significantly associated with ICU admission. For surgical variables, estimated blood loss (P < 0.001) and length of surgery (P < 0.001) were significantly associated with ICU admission., Conclusions: Age, female gender, ASA grade, cardiac comorbidities, intraoperative blood loss, and length of surgery were associated with increased risk of postoperative ICU admission. Knowledge of these factors can aid surgeons in patient selection and preoperative discussion with patients about potential need for unexpected admission to the ICU.

Objective: Exposure to surgical subspecialties is limited during the preclinical years of medical school. To offset this limitation, the authors created a neurosurgery elective for first- and second-year medical students. The objective was to provide each student with early exposure to neurosurgery by combining clinical experience with faculty discussions about the academic and personal realities of a career in neurosurgery., Methods: From 2012 to 2013, the authors offered a neurosurgery elective course to first- and second-year medical students. Each class consisted of the following: 1) peer-reviewed article analysis; 2) student presentation; 3) faculty academic lecture; 4) faculty personal lecture with question and answer period., Results: Thirty-five students were enrolled over a 2-year period. After completing the elective, students were more likely to: consider neurosurgery as a future career (P < 0.0001), perceive the personalities of attending physicians to be more collegial and friendly (P = 0.0002), perceive attending quality of life to be higher (P < 0.0001), and believe it was achievable to be a neurosurgeon and have a family (P < 0.0001). The elective did not alter students' perceived difficulty of training (P = 0.7105)., Conclusions: The neurosurgery elective course significantly increased student knowledge across several areas and changed perceptions about collegiality, quality of life, and family-work balance, while not altering the students' views about the difficulty of training. Adopting a neurosurgery elective geared towards preclinical medical students can significantly change attitudes about the field of neurosurgery and has potential to increase interest in pursuing a career in neurosurgery., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Unlabelled: The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy of a cognitive-behavioral-based physical therapy (CBPT) program for improving outcomes in patients after lumbar spine surgery. A randomized controlled trial was conducted on 86 adults undergoing a laminectomy with or without arthrodesis for a lumbar degenerative condition. Patients were screened preoperatively for high fear of movement using the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia. Randomization to either CBPT or an education program occurred at 6 weeks after surgery. Assessments were completed pretreatment, posttreatment and at 3-month follow-up. The primary outcomes were pain and disability measured by the Brief Pain Inventory and Oswestry Disability Index. Secondary outcomes included general health (SF-12) and performance-based tests (5-Chair Stand, Timed Up and Go, 10-Meter Walk). Multivariable linear regression analyses found that CBPT participants had significantly greater decreases in pain and disability and increases in general health and physical performance compared with the education group at the 3-month follow-up. Results suggest a targeted CBPT program may result in significant and clinically meaningful improvement in postoperative outcomes. CBPT has the potential to be an evidence-based program that clinicians can recommend for patients at risk for poor recovery after spine surgery., Perspective: This study investigated a targeted cognitive-behavioral-based physical therapy program for patients after lumbar spine surgery. Findings lend support to the hypothesis that incorporating cognitive-behavioral strategies into postoperative physical therapy may address psychosocial risk factors and improve pain, disability, general health, and physical performance outcomes., (Copyright © 2016 American Pain Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

OBJECT The health care landscape is rapidly shifting to incentivize quality of care rather than quantity of care. Quality and outcomes registry platforms lie at the center of all emerging evidence-driven reform models and will be used to inform decision makers in health care delivery. Obtaining real-world registry outcomes data from patients 12 months after spine surgery remains a challenge. The authors set out to determine whether 3-month patient-reported outcomes accurately predict 12-month outcomes and, hence, whether 3-month measurement systems suffice to identify effective versus noneffective spine care. METHODS All patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery for degenerative disease at a single medical institution over a 2-year period were enrolled in a prospective longitudinal registry. Patient-reported outcome instruments (numeric rating scale [NRS], Oswestry Disability Index [ODI], 12-Item Short Form Health Survey [SF-12], EQ-5D, and the Zung Self-Rating Depression Scale) were recorded prospectively at baseline and at 3 months and 12 months after surgery. Linear regression was performed to determine the independent association of 3- and 12-month outcome. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was performed to determine whether improvement in general health state (EQ-5D) and disability (ODI) at 3 months accurately predicted improvement and achievement of minimum clinical important difference (MCID) at 12 months. RESULTS A total of 593 patients undergoing elective lumbar surgery were included in the study. There was a significant correlation between 3-month and 12-month EQ-5D (r = 0.71; p < 0.0001) and ODI (r = 0.70; p < 0.0001); however, the authors observed a sizable discrepancy in achievement of a clinically significant improvement (MCID) threshold at 3 versus 12 months on an individual patient level. For postoperative disability (ODI), 11.5% of patients who achieved an MCID threshold at 3 months dropped below this threshold at 12 months; 10.5% of patients who did not meet the MCID threshold at 3 months continued to improve and ultimately surpassed the MCID threshold at 12 months. For ODI, achieving MCID at 3 months accurately predicted 12-month MCID with only 62.6% specificity and 86.8% sensitivity. For postoperative health utility (EQ-5D), 8.5% of patients lost an MCID threshold improvement from 3 months to 12 months, while 4.0% gained the MCID threshold between 3 and 12 months postoperatively. For EQ-5D (quality-adjusted life years), achieving MCID at 3 months accurately predicted 12-month MCID with only 87.7% specificity and 87.2% sensitivity. CONCLUSIONS In a prospective registry, patient-reported measures of treatment effectiveness obtained at 3 months correlated with 12-month measures overall in aggregate, but did not reliably predict 12-month outcome at the patient level. Many patients who do not benefit from surgery by 3 months do so by 12 months, and, conversely, many patients reporting meaningful improvement by 3 months report loss of benefit at 12 months. Prospective longitudinal spine outcomes registries need to span at least 12 months to identify effective versus noneffective patient care.

Study Design: Analysis of patients in a prospective registry., Objective: To determine the association between patient demographics, outcomes, and loss to follow-up 12 months after spine surgery., Summary of Background Data: Obtaining outcomes 12 months after spine surgery remains a challenge. Loss to follow-up is believed to introduce biases and portend poor outcomes. Associations between follow-up, patient demographics, and outcomes in the degenerative spine population have not been studied., Methods: Patients undergoing surgery for degenerative spine disease at a single institution over a 2-year period were enrolled in a prospective registry. Patient demographics, comorbidities, treatment variables, readmissions/reoperations, and all 90-day surgical morbidity were collected. Patient-reported outcomes were recorded at baseline, 3-months, and 12-months after surgery. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was done to identify predictors of loss to follow-up., Results: A total of 1484 patients with baseline and 3-month outcomes were included. Two hundred thirty-three (15.7%) patients were lost to follow-up at 12 months. There was no difference in the baseline demographics (Sex: P = 0.46) and comorbidities (American Society of Anesthesiologists Grade: P = 0.06) of patients who had follow-up at 12-months versus those who did not, except age and employment status. Patients lost to follow-up at 12 months were younger (51.0 vs. 57.1 years; P < 0.001) and a higher proportion were employed preoperatively (45.9% vs. 41.7%, P = 0.24). Preoperative pain, disability, and quality of life was similar between the two groups (P > 0.05). There was no difference in 90-day morbidity (17.2% vs. 16.2%; P = 0.70) and 3-month pain, disability, quality of life, and patient satisfaction (85.0% vs. 88.3%; P = 0.63) (P > 0.05). In multivariate model, only younger age (P < 0.001) was an independent predictor of loss to follow-up at 12 months., Conclusion: In our prospective spine registry the 12-month loss to follow-up rate is approximately 15%. The only independent predictor of loss to follow-up is younger age and preoperative employment., Level of Evidence: 3.

Quality measurement and public reporting are intended to facilitate targeted outcome improvement, practice-based learning, shared decision making, and effective resource utilization. However, regulatory implementation has created a complex network of reporting requirements for physicians and medical practices. These include Medicare's Physician Quality Reporting System, Electronic Health Records Meaningful Use, and Value-Based Payment Modifier programs. The common denominator of all these initiatives is that to avoid penalties, physicians must meet "generic" quality standards that, in the case of neurosurgery and many other specialties, are not pertinent to everyday clinical practice and hold specialists accountable for care decisions outside of their direct control. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has recently authorized alternative quality reporting mechanisms for the Physician Quality Reporting System, which allow registries to become subspecialty-reporting mechanisms under the Qualified Clinical Data Registry (QCDR) program. These programs further give subspecialties latitude to develop measures of health care quality that are relevant to the care provided. As such, these programs amplify the power of clinical registries by allowing more accurate assessment of practice patterns, patient experiences, and overall health care value. Neurosurgery has been at the forefront of these developments, leveraging the experience of the National Neurosurgery Quality and Outcomes Database to create one of the first specialty-specific QCDRs. Recent legislative reform has continued to change this landscape and has fueled optimism that registries (including QCDRs) and other specialty-driven quality measures will be a prominent feature of federal and private sector quality improvement initiatives. These physician- and patient-driven methods will allow neurosurgery to underscore the value of interventions, contribute to the development of sustainable health care solutions, and actively participate in meaningful quality initiatives for the benefit of the patients served.

Meaningful quality measurement and public reporting have the potential to facilitate targeted outcome improvement, practice-based learning, shared decision making, and effective resource utilization. Recent developments in national quality reporting programs, such as the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Qualified Clinical Data Registry (QCDR) reporting option, have enhanced the ability of specialty groups to develop relevant quality measures of the care they deliver. QCDRs will complete the collection and submission of Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS) quality measures data on behalf of individual eligible professionals. The National Neurosurgery Quality and Outcomes Database (N(2)QOD) offers 21 non-PQRS measures, initially focused on spine procedures, which are the first specialty-specific measures for neurosurgery. Securing QCDR status for N(2)QOD is a tremendously important accomplishment for our specialty. This program will ensure that data collected through our registries and used for PQRS is meaningful for neurosurgeons, related spine care practitioners, their patients, and other stakeholders. The 2015 N(2)QOD QCDR is further evidence of neurosurgery's commitment to substantively advancing the health care quality paradigm. The following manuscript outlines the measures now approved for use in the 2015 N(2)QOD QCDR. Measure specifications (measure type and descriptions, related measures, if any, as well as relevant National Quality Strategy domain[s]) along with rationale are provided for each measure.

OBJECT Lumbar spine surgery has been demonstrated to be efficacious for many degenerative spine conditions. However, there is wide variability in outcome after spine surgery at the individual patient level. All stakeholders in spine care will benefit from identification of the unique patient or disease subgroups that are least likely to benefit from surgery, are prone to costly complications, and have increased health care utilization. There remains a large demand for individual patient-level predictive analytics to guide decision support to optimize outcomes at the patient and population levels. METHODS One thousand eight hundred three consecutive patients undergoing spine surgery for various degenerative lumbar diagnoses were prospectively enrolled and followed for 1 year. A comprehensive patient interview and health assessment was performed at baseline and at 3 and 12 months after surgery. All predictive covariates were selected a priori. Eighty percent of the sample was randomly selected for model development, and 20% for model validation. Linear regression was performed with Bayesian model averaging to model 12-month ODI (Oswestry Disability Index). Logistic regression with Bayesian model averaging was used to model likelihood of complications, 30-day readmission, need for inpatient rehabilitation, and return to work. Goodness-of-fit was assessed via R(2) for 12-month ODI and via the c-statistic, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), for the categorical endpoints. Discrimination (predictive performance) was assessed, using R(2) for the ODI model and the c-statistic for the categorical endpoint models. Calibration was assessed using a plot of predicted versus observed values for the ODI model and the Hosmer-Lemeshow test for the categorical endpoint models. RESULTS On average, all patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were improved after surgery (ODI baseline vs 12 month: 50.4 vs 29.5%, p < 0.001). Complications occurred in 121 patients (6.6%), 108 (5.9%) were readmitted within 30 days of surgery, 188 (10.3%) required discharge to inpatient rehabilitation, 1630 (88.9%) returned to work, and 449 (24.5%) experienced an unplanned outcome (no improvement in ODI, a complication, or readmission). There were 45 unique baseline variable inputs, derived from 39 clinical variables and 38 questionnaire items (ODI, SF-12, MSPQ, VAS-BP, VAS-LP, VAS-NP), included in each model. For prediction of 12-month ODI, R(2) was 0.51 for development and 0.47 for the validation study. For prediction of a complication, readmission, inpatient rehabilitation, and return to work, AUC values ranged 0.72-0.84 for development and 0.79-0.84 for validation study. CONCLUSIONS A novel prediction model utilizing both clinical data and patient interview inputs explained the majority of variation in outcome observed after lumbar spine surgery and reliably predicted 12-month improvement in physical disability, return to work, major complications, readmission, and need for inpatient rehabilitation for individual patients. Application of these models may allow clinicians to offer spine surgery specifically to those who are most likely to benefit and least likely to incur complications and excess costs.

OBJECT There is a paradigm shift toward rewarding providers for quality rather than volume. Complications appear to occur at a fairly consistent frequency in large aggregate data sets. Understanding how complications affect long-term patient-reported outcomes (PROs) following degenerative lumbar surgery is vital. The authors hypothesized that 90-day complications would adversely affect long-term PROs. METHODS Nine hundred six consecutive patients undergoing elective surgery for degenerative lumbar disease over a period of 4 years were enrolled into a prospective longitudinal registry. The following PROs were recorded at baseline and 12-month follow-up: Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score, numeric rating scales for back and leg pain, quality of life (EQ-5D scores), general physical and mental health (SF-12 Physical Component Summary [PCS] and Mental Component Summary [MCS] scores) and responses to the North American Spine Society (NASS) satisfaction questionnaire. Previously published minimum clinically important difference (MCID) threshold were used to define meaningful improvement. Complications were divided into major (surgicalsite infection, hardware failure, new neurological deficit, pulmonary embolism, hematoma and myocardial infarction) and minor (urinary tract infection, pneumonia, and deep venous thrombosis). RESULTS Complications developed within 90 days of surgery in 13% (118) of the patients (major in 12% [108] and minor in 8% [68]). The mean improvement in ODI scores, EQ-5D scores, SF-12 PCS scores, and satisfaction at 3 months after surgery was significantly less in the patients with complications than in those who did not have major complications (ODI: 13.5 ± 21.2 vs 21.7 ± 19, < 0.0001; EQ-5D: 0.17 ± 0.25 vs 0.23 ± 0.23, p = 0.04; SF-12 PCS: 8.6 ± 13.3 vs 13.0 ± 11.9, 0.001; and satisfaction: 76% vs 90%, p = 0.002). At 12 months after surgery, the patients with major complications had higher ODI scores than those without complications (29.1 ± 17.7 vs 25.3 ± 18.3, p = 0.02). However, there was no difference in the change scores in ODI and absolute scores across all other PROs between the 2 groups. In multivariable linear regression analysis, after controlling for an array of preoperative variables, the occurrence of a major complication was not associated with worsening ODI scores 12 months after surgery. There was no difference in the percentage of patients achieving the MCID for disability (66% vs 64%), back pain (55% vs 56%), leg pain (62% vs 59%), or quality of life (19% vs 14%) or in patient satisfaction rates (82% vs 80%) between those without and with major complications. CONCLUSIONS Major complications within 90 days following lumbar spine surgery have significant impact on the short-term PROs. Patients with complications, however, do eventually achieve clinically meaningful outcomes and report satisfaction equivalent to those without major complications. This information allows a physician to counsel patients on the fact that a complication creates frustration, cost, and inconvenience; however, it does not appear to adversely affect clinically meaningful long-term outcomes and satisfaction.

OBJECT In an era of escalating health care cost and universal pressure of improving efficiency and cost of care, ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) have emerged as lower cost options for many surgical therapies. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is one of the most prevalent spine surgeries performed and is rapidly increasing with an expanding aging population. While ASCs offer cost advantages for ACDF, there is a scarcity of evidence that ASCs allow for equivalent quality and thus superior health care value. Therefore, the authors analyzed a nationwide, prospective quality improvement registry (National Surgical Quality Improvement Program [NSQIP]) to compare the quality of ACDF surgery performed in the outpatient ASC versus the inpatient hospital setting. METHODS Patients undergoing ACDF (2005-2011) were identified from the NSQIP database based on the primary Current Procedural Terminology codes. Patients were divided into 2 cohorts (outpatient vs inpatient) based on the acute care setting documented in the NSQIP database. All 30-day surgical morbidity and mortality rates were compared between the 2 groups. Propensity score matching and multivariate logistic regression analysis were used to adjust for confounding factors and to identify the independent association of outpatient ACDF with perioperative outcomes and morbidity. RESULTS A total of 7288 ACDF cases were identified (inpatient = 6120, outpatient = 1168). Unadjusted rates of major morbidity (0.94% vs 4.5%, p < 0.001) and return to the operating room (OR) within 30 days (0.3% vs 2.0%, p < 0.001) were significantly lower in outpatient versus inpatient ACDF. After propensity matching 1442 cases (inpatient = 650, outpatient = 792) based on baseline 32 covariates, rates of major morbidity (1.4% vs 3.1%, p = 0.03), and return to the OR (0.34% vs 1.4%, p = 0.04) remained significantly lower after outpatient ACDF. Adjusted comparison using multivariate logistic regression demonstrated that ACDF performed in the outpatient setting had 58% lower odds of having a major morbidity and 80% lower odds of return to the OR within 30 days. CONCLUSIONS An analysis of a nationwide, prospective quality improvement registry representing more than 250 hospitals demonstrates that 1- to 2-level ACDF can be safely performed in the outpatient ambulatory surgery setting in patients who are appropriate candidates. In an effort to decrease cost of care, surgeons can safely consider performing ACDF in an ASC environment.

Background Context: Only Level 3 evidence exists for the diagnosis and treatment of atlantooccipital dislocation (AOD) with few studies examining mortality, neurologic improvement, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs)., Purpose: First, the aim was to determine: the incidence of AOD, 90-day surgical morbidity and mortality after AOD, patient factors that may be associated with delayed or missed diagnosis, and factors that were associated with mortality and neurologic improvement after AOD. Secondly, the aim was to quantify the pain, disability, and quality of life experienced by patients surviving AOD., Study Design/setting: This was a retrospective cohort study., Patient Sample: A total of 5,337 consecutive spine computed tomography traumagrams from 1997 to 2012 were included., Outcome Measures: Mortality, neurologic improvement, complications, EuroQol five dimensions (EQ-5D), Neck Disability Index (NDI), Numeric Rating Scale (NRS)-neck, NRS-arm, and return-to-work were the outcome measures., Methods: Patients were considered to have AOD if they met one of the following radiographic criteria: basion-dens interval greater than 10 mm; basion-axial interval: anterior displacement greater than 12 mm or posterior displacement greater than 4 mm between the basion and posterior C2 line; and condyle to C1 interval greater than 1.4 mm. Linear regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with 90-day mortality, neurologic improvement, and missed diagnosis. Patient-reported outcomes were assessed via phone interview., Results: Thirty-one patients met radiographic criteria for AOD; an incidence of 0.6% over 15 years. Twenty-one (68%) patients were treated with occipital cervical fusion. At 90 days postoperatively, there were no new neurologic deficits or reoperations. Eight (26%) patients died within 90 days. All patients who died had no documented AOD diagnosis and were not treated surgically. Missed AOD diagnosis was the strongest predictor of mortality. Younger age, lower Glasgow Coma Score, lower Injury Severity Score (ISS) score, and worse initial American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) score were significantly associated with greater neurologic improvement. Higher ISS score and better ASIA score were significantly associated with missed AOD diagnosis. The average PROs metrics at time of telephone follow-up were as follows: EQ-5D=0.73±0.19, NDI=30.89±18.57, NRS-neck=2.33±2.21, NRS-arm=2.00±2.54. Of the patients with follow-up data, four were employed full-time, and five were receiving disability., Conclusions: Our work suggests that failure to diagnose AOD is a powerful predictor of mortality. Higher ISS scores and better neurologic presentation were significantly associated with missed diagnosis. Craniocervical arthrodesis preserved neurologic function with low complication rate and unexpectedly high PROs and return-to-work. These results must be carefully interpreted because it is unclear whether missed AOD diagnosis accompanies another death-causing injury (eg, traumatic brain injury) or if failure to treat AOD contributes to mortality in a multifactorial manner., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Value-based purchasing is rapidly being implemented to rein in the unsustainably rising costs of the US healthcare system. With a growing elderly population, it is vital to understand the value of spinal surgery in this group of individuals., Objective: To compare the cost-effectiveness of lumbar decompression with and without fusion for degenerative spine disease in elderly vs nonelderly patients., Methods: A total of 221 patients undergoing elective primary surgery for degenerative lumbar pathology who were enrolled in a prospective longitudinal registry were analyzed. Patient-reported outcomes of Oswestry Disability Index, numeric rating scale for back and leg pain, and quality-of-life scores (EuroQol-5D) were recorded. Two-year back-related medical resource use, missed work, and health-state values (quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs]) were assessed. Two-year resource use was multiplied by unit costs based on Medicare national allowable payment amounts (direct cost). Patient and caregiver workday losses were multiplied by gross-of-tax wage rate (indirect cost). Patients were divided into age groups <70 and ≥70 years., Results: Mean cumulative 2-year QALYs gained were statistically similar between younger and older patients for both decompression alone (0.67 ± 0.65 vs 0.56 ± 0.65; P = .47) and decompression with fusion (0.56 ± 0.55 vs 0.59 ± 0.55; P = .26). Mean 2-year cost per QALY gained between younger and older patients was similar for both decompression alone ($24,365 vs $31,750 per QALY; P = .11) and decompression with fusion ($64,228 vs $60,183 per QALY; P = .09)., Conclusion: Surgical treatment provided significant improvements in pain, disability, and quality of life for elderly patients with degenerative lumbar disease. Observed costs per QALY gained for lumbar decompression with and without fusion were similar for younger and older patients, demonstrating that lumbar spine surgery in the elderly is an equally cost-effective and valuable intervention.

Background: Lumbar spine degenerative pathologies are prevalent in the United States. The health benefit of spine surgery in the elderly has been questioned., Objective: To compare effectiveness, morbidity, and quality of care associated with surgical management of degenerative lumbar spinal disorders in elderly vs nonelderly patients., Methods: The National Neurosurgery Quality and Outcomes Database registry prospectively collects measures of surgical safety and patient-reported outcomes for 1 year after surgery. All lumbar surgery cases were queried to compare the elderly surgical population (70 years of age and older) and associated outcomes with patients younger than 70 years of age., Results: A total of 4370 lumbar spine surgeries were enrolled in National Neurosurgery Quality and Outcomes Database with 1-year follow-up; 1020 (23%) were elderly patients. The elderly had an increased incidence of heart disease, osteoporosis, high-risk anesthesia grade (American Society of Anesthesiologists grade 3/4), more than 3 level surgery, ambulation assist device use, unemployment, female sex, white race, and stenosis as a diagnosis. The elderly patients had a lower body mass index, incidence of anxiety/depression, liability/workers' compensation claims, and disc herniation as a diagnosis. Length of hospitalization and postdischarge inpatient rehabilitation/nursing facility was significantly greater in the elderly. The incidence of surgical complications and 90-day hospital readmission were similar. Significant and equivalent improvements at 1 year in pain, disability, and quality of life were reported by both elderly and nonelderly patients overall and for each unique spine diagnosis., Conclusion: For all ages, lumbar spine surgery resulted in significant improvement in pain, disability, and quality of life. Elderly patients experienced equivalent and significant health benefit in all measured health domains without an increased rate of surgical complications or hospital readmissions. Elective lumbar spine surgery in the elderly provides significant gains in health status, justifying its continued use in this growing population.

Background: As part of the Affordable Care Act, health utility metrics are being investigated to define a cost-effective, value-based health care model. EuroQOL-5D (EQ-5D) and Short Form-6D (SF-6D) are commonly used quality-of-life instruments. Domains in the EQ-5D questionnaire are thought to be less responsive in measuring quality of life after cervical surgery., Objective: To evaluate the validity and responsiveness of SF-6D and EQ-5D in determining health and quality of life after elective cervical spine surgery., Methods: A total of 420 patients undergoing elective cervical spine surgery over a period of 2 years were enrolled in a prospective longitudinal registry. Patient-reported outcomes Neck Disability Index (NDI), EQ-5D, and SF-12 were recorded. Based on previously published equations, SF-6D was calculated using NDI and SF-12 scores. Patients were asked whether "surgery met their expectations" (meaningful improvement). The validity and relative responsiveness of SF-6D (NDI), SF-6D (SF-12), and EQ-5D to discriminate between meaningful and nonmeaningful improvement were calculated., Results: Sixty-six percent of patients (277) reported a level of improvement after surgery that met their expectations (meaningful improvement). SF-6D (NDI) (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.69) was a more valid discriminator of meaningful improvement compared with the SF-6D (SF-12) (AUC = 0.65) and EQ-5D (AUC = 0.62). SF-6D (NDI) was also a more responsive measure compared with SF-6D (SF-12) and EQ-5D (standardized response mean difference: 0.66, 0.48, and 0.44, respectively)., Conclusion: SF-6D is a more valid and responsive measure of general health and quality of life compared with EQ-5D. SF-6D derived from disease-specific disability scores was more valid and responsive than that derived from the generic preference-based SF-12. Cost-effective studies should use SF-6D as a measure of QALY after cervical spine surgery.

Study Design: Mixed retrospective-prospective cohort study., Objective: To characterize practice patterns for the use of Cell Saver at our institution, investigate its cost-effectiveness, and propose a new tool for patient selection., Summary of Background Data: Blood loss is an exceedingly common complication of spine surgery, and Cell Saver intraoperative cell salvage has been used to decrease reliance on allogeneic blood transfusions for blood volume replacement. The cost-effectiveness of Cell Saver has not been established for lumbar spinal surgery, and no universal guidelines exist for clinicians to decide when to utilize this tool. Other authors have proposed cutoffs for anticipated blood loss volumes which indicate that Cell Saver should be used., Methods: Five hundred and eight patients undergoing lumbar laminectomy in 3 or fewer levels were reviewed from our prospective spinal outcomes registry. Cost information for Cell Saver and allogeneic transfusions was collected from our institution's billing and collections department. Logistic regression was used to identify patient characteristics associated with use of Cell Saver. An incremental cost effectiveness ratio was calculated based on transfusion and cost data. A clinical prediction score was derived using logistic regression., Results: Use of Cell Saver correlated with increased age, higher body mass index, diabetes, greater American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, and greater number of previous spine surgeries. Outcomes for patients who did and did not have Cell Saver set up intraoperatively were equivocal. Cell Saver was not cost effective based on current usage patterns, but may become cost effective if used for patients with high expected blood loss. A simple clinical prediction rule is proposed which may aid in selection of patients to have Cell Saver present intraoperatively., Conclusion: Cell Saver is not a cost-effective intervention but may become cost effective if a threshold of expected intraoperative blood loss is used to select patients more judiciously., Level of Evidence: 3.

Background: Patient satisfaction metrics are emerging as determinants of quality of care and reimbursement after spine surgery. Identifying modifiable factors that improve satisfaction is of utmost importance., Objective: To evaluate whether patient-related factors or patient-reported outcomes could predict dissatisfaction after spine surgery., Methods: Patients undergoing elective surgery for degenerative lumbar and cervical disease over a period of 2 years were enrolled in a prospective longitudinal registry. Patient-reported outcome, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI)/Neck Disability Index (NDI), and numeric rating scale for back/neck (BP/NP) and leg/arm pain (LP/AP), were recorded at baseline and the 12-month follow-up. Previously published values of minimal clinically important differences of 14.9% for ODI, 17.3% for NDI, 2.1/2.6 for BP/NP, and 2.8/4.1 for LP/AP were used. Patient satisfaction was assessed with the North American Spine Society Satisfaction Questionnaire., Results: A total of 1645 patients underwent elective spine surgery (811 male patients; age, 57 ± 13 years). Eighty-three percent of patients (1362) reported satisfaction with outcome 12 months after surgery. In a multivariable analysis, after controlling for an array of patient-specific factors, the inability to achieve minimal clinically important difference for ODI/NDI (P < .001; odds ratio [OR] = 4.215; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.7-6.5), BP/NP pain (P < .001; OR = 3.1; 95% CI, 2.188-4.43), and LP/NP (P < .001; OR = 2.6, 95% CI, 1.8-3.6); Medicaid/uninsured payer status (P = .04; OR = 1.39; 95% CI, 1.01-1.93); and higher baseline ODI/NDI (P = .002; OR = 1.11; 95% CI, 1.04-1.19) and BP/NP scores (P = .002; OR = 1.03; 95% CI, 1.01-1.06) were the independent predictors of patient dissatisfaction at 12 months after surgery., Conclusion: Patient satisfaction with outcome may accurately represent the effectiveness of surgical spine care in terms of 1-year improvement in pain and disability. However, healthcare stakeholders relying on satisfaction as a proxy of overall quality or effectiveness of care need to account for Medicaid/uninsured payer status and worse baseline pain and disability scores as confounders.