Search

Opioid utilization has been well studied for inpatient anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). However, the amount and type of opioids prescribed following ambulatory ACDF and the associated risk of persistent use are largely unknown.To characterize opioid prescription filling following single-level ambulatory ACDF compared with inpatient procedures.Retrospective cohort study.Opioid-naive patients who underwent ambulatory (no overnight stay) or inpatient single-level ACDF from 2011 to 2019 were identified from a national insurance database.Rate, amount, and type of perioperative opioid prescription.Opioid-naive patients who underwent ambulatory (no overnight stay) or inpatient single-level ACDF from 2011 to 2019 were identified from a national insurance database. Perioperative opioids were defined as opioid prescriptions 30 days before and 14 days after the procedure. Rate, amount, and type of opioid prescription were characterized. Multivariable analyses controlling for any differences in demographics and comorbidities between the two treatment groups were utilized to determine any association between surgical setting and persistent opioid use (defined as the patient still filling new opioid prescriptions90 days postoperatively).A total of 42,521 opioid-naive patients were identified, of which 2,850 were ambulatory and 39,671 were inpatient. Ambulatory ACDF was associated with slightly increased perioperative opioid prescription filling (52.7% vs 47.3% for inpatient procedures; p.001). Among the 20,280 patients (47.7%) who filled perioperative opioid prescriptions, the average amount of opioids prescribed (in morphine milligram equivalents) was similar between ambulatory and inpatient procedures (550 vs 540, p=.413). There was no association between surgical setting and persistent opioid use in patients who filled a perioperative opioid prescription, even after controlling for comorbidities, (adjusted odds ratio, 1.15, p=.066).Ambulatory ACDF patients who filled perioperative opioid prescriptions were prescribed a similar amount of opioids as those undergoing inpatient procedures. Further, ambulatory ACDF does not appear to be a risk factor for persistent opioid use. These findings are important for patient counseling as well as support the safety profile of this new surgical pathway.

Published rates for disc reherniation following primary discectomy are around 6%, but the ultimate reoperation outcomes in patients after receiving revision discectomy are not well understood. Additionally, any disparity in the outcomes of subsequent revision discectomy (SRD) versus subsequent lumbar fusion (SLF) following primary/revision discectomy remains poorly studied.To determine the 8-year SRD/SLF rates and time until SRD/SLF after primary/revision discectomy respectively.Retrospective cohort study.Patients undergoing primary or revision discectomy, with records in the PearlDiver Patient Records Database from the years 2010 to 2019.Subsequent surgery type and time to subsequent surgery.Patients were grouped into primary or revision discectomy cohorts based off of the nature of "index" procedure (primary or revision discectomy) using ICD9/10 and CPT procedure codes from 2010 to 19 insurance data sets in the PearlDiver Patient Records Database. Preoperative demographic data was collected. Outcome measures such as subsequent surgery type (fusion or discectomy) and time to subsequent surgery were collected prospectively in PearlDiver Mariner database. Statistical analysis was performed using BellWeather statistical software. A Kaplan-Meier survival analysis of time to SLF/SRD was performed on each cohort, and log-rank test was used to compare the rates of SLF/SRD between cohorts.A total of 20,147 patients were identified (17,849 primary discectomy, 2,298 revision discectomy). The 8-year rates of SRD (6.1% in revision cohort, 4.8% in primary cohort, p.01) and SLF (10.4% in revision cohort, 6.2% in primary cohort, p.01) were higher after revision versus primary discectomy. Time to SLF was shorter after revision versus primary discectomy (709 vs. 886 days, p.01). After both primary and revision discectomy, the 8-year rate of SLF (10.4% in revision cohort, 6.2% in primary cohort, p.01) is greater than SRD (6.1% in revision cohort, 4.8% in primary cohort, p.01).Compared to primary discectomy, revision discectomy has higher rates of SLF (10.4% vs. 6.2%), and faster time to SLF (2.4 vs. 1.9 years) at 8-year follow up.

Degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) is one of the most common pathologies spine surgeons treat. While a number of potential factors have been identified, there is no current consensus on which variables most impact the decision to fuse vs. decompress alone in this population.The purpose of this study was to describe current DS treatment practices and identify both the radiographic and clinical factors leading to the decision to fuse segments for one level DS.Descriptive cross-sectional survey.Surveys were administered to members of Lumbar Spine Research Society and Society of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery.Surgeon demographics and treatment practices were reported. Radiographic and clinical parameters were ranked by each surgeon with regards to their importance.The primary analysis was limited to completed surveys. Baseline characteristics were summarized. Clinical and radiographic parameters were ranked and compared. Ranking of each clinical and radiographic parameters was reported using best and worst rank, mean rank position, and percentiles. The most important, top 3 most important, and top 5 most important parameters were ordered given each parameter's ranking frequency.381 surveys were returned completed. With regards to fusion vs. decompression, 19.9% fuse all cases, 39.1% fuse75%, 17.8% fuse 50%-75%, and 23.2% fuse25%. The most common decompressive technique was a partial laminotomy (51.4%), followed by full laminectomy (28.9%). 82.2% of respondents instrument all fusion cases. Instability (93.2%), spondylolisthesis grade (59.8%), and laterolisthesis (37.3%) were the most common radiographic factors impacting the decision to fuse. With regards to the clinical factors leading to fusion, mechanical low back pain (83.2%), activity level (58.3%), and neurogenic claudication (42.8%) were the top 3 clinical parameters.There is little consensus on the treatment of DS, with society members showing substantial variation in treatment patterns with the majority utilizing fusion for treatment. The most common radiographic parameters impacting treatment are instability, spondylolisthesis grade, and laterolisthesis while mechanical low back pain, activity level, and neurogenic claudication are the most common clinical parameters.

A retrospective cohort comparison study.To compare perioperative outcomes, radiographic parameters, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) between minimally invasive unilateral laminotomy with bilateral decompression (MIS-ULBD) versus MIS transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) for treatment of low-grade lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis.While lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis is a common condition, optimal surgical treatment remains controversial. Newer MIS techniques, which preserve bone, paraspinal musculature, and posterior midline stabilizers, are thought to reduce the risk of iatrogenic instability and may obviate the need for fusion. However, few comparative studies of MIS techniques for low-grade lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis currently exist.Consecutive patients with low-grade (Meyerding grade I or II) lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis treated with single-level MIS-ULBD or MIS-TLIF were identified retrospectively from a prospectively collected spine surgery registry from April 2017 to November 2021. Perioperative outcomes, radiographic data, and PROMs were assessed.A total of 188 patients underwent either MIS-ULBD or MIS-TLIF (79 MIS-ULBD and 109 MIS-TLIF). Patients who underwent MIS-ULBD tended to be older, had higher Charlson Comorbidity Index, lower mean percentage back pain, higher percentage of L4/L5 pathology, shorter operative time, lower estimated blood loss, and lower postoperative pain ( P0.05). In both groups, there were statistically significant improvements at one year for five of the six PROMs studied: Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), visual analog scale (VAS)-back pain, VAS-leg pain, Short Form 12 Physical Component Score (SF12-PCS), and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) ( P0.05). On multivariate analysis controlling for confounders, there were no associations between procedure type and achieving minimal clinically important difference at one year in any of the PROMs studied.The current study suggests that both MIS-ULBD and MIS-TLIF result in significant improvements in pain and physical function for patients with low-grade lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis.3.

Single-center, multisurgeon, retrospective review.To evaluate the timing of return to commonly performed activities following minimally invasive spine surgery. Identify preoperative factors associated with these outcomes.Studies have reported return to activities with open techniques, but the precise timing of when patients return to these activities after minimally invasive surgery remains uncertain.Patients who underwent either minimally invasive lumbar laminectomy (MI-L) or minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) were included. Patient-reported outcome measures, return to drive, return to work, and discontinuation of opioids data were reviewed. Regression was conducted to identify factors associated with return to driving by 15 days, return to work by 30 days, and for discontinuing opioids by 15 days. A composite group analysis was also performed for patients who returned to all three activities by 30 days.In total, 123 MI-L patients and 107 MI-TLIF patients were included. Overall, 88.8% of MI-L patients and 96.4% of MI-TLIF patients returned to driving in 11 and 18.5 days, respectively. In all, 91.9% of MI-L patients and 85.7% of MI-TLIF patients returned to work in 14 and 25 days. In all, 88.7% of MI-L patients and 92.6% of MI-TLIF patients discontinued opioids in a median of seven and 11 days. Overall, 96.2% of MI-L patients and 100% of MI-TLIF patients returned to all three activities, with a median of 27 and 31 days, respectively. Male sex [odds ratio (OR)=3.57] and preoperative 12-Item Short Form Physical Component Score (OR=1.08) are associated with return to driving by 15 days. Male sex (OR=3.23) and preoperative 12-Item Short Form Physical Component Score (OR=1.07) are associated with return to work by 30 days. Preoperative Visual Analog Scale back was associated with decreased odds of discontinuing opioids by 15 days (OR=0.84).Most patients return to activity following MI-L and MI-TLIF. These findings serve as an important compass for preoperative counseling.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, there has been increasing interest in outpatient spine surgery. Minimally invasive techniques have created an opportunity for ambulatory lumbar fusion, and these techniques increasingly involve advanced technologies such as navigation and robotics. OBJECTIVE: To explore the barriers, advantages, and future predictions for such technology in the context of outpatient lumbar fusions. METHODS: This is a narrative review of studies examining the advantages, limitations, and cost-effectiveness of navigation and spinal robotics in conjunction with the outcomes and costs of outpatient lumbar fusion. RESULTS: Outpatient lumbar fusion is a growing trend with ample evidence of its safety, favorable patient outcomes, and cost savings. Navigation and spinal robotics are associated with improved instrumentation accuracy and fewer complications, and the long-term cost savings can make these technologies financially practical in the outpatient setting. Future capabilities with robotics will only increase their value. CONCLUSIONS: Advanced technologies such as navigation and robotics are strategic long-term investments in the context of outpatient lumbar fusion. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The favorable outcomes and costs associated with navigation and robotics will be relevant to any spine surgeon interested in developing an outpatient lumbar fusion program. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 5.

Retrospective review of prospectively collected data.To analyze the postoperative factors that led delayed discharge in patients who would have been eligible for ambulatory lumbar fusion (ALF).Assessing postoperative inefficiencies is vital to increase the feasibility of ALF.Patients who underwent single-level minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and would have met the eligibility criteria for ALF were included. Length of stay (LOS); time in postanesthesia recovery unit (PACU); alertness and neurological examination, and pain scores at three and six hours; type of analgesia; time to physical therapy (PT) visit; reasons for PT nonclearance; time to per-oral (PO) intake; time to voiding; time to readiness for discharge were assessed. Time taken to meet each discharge criterion was calculated. Multiple regression analyses were performed to study the effect of variables on postoperative parameters influencing discharge.Of 71 patients, 4% were discharged on the same day and 69% on postoperative day 1. PT clearance was the last-met discharge criterion in 93%. Sixty-six percent did not get PT evaluation on the day of surgery. Seventy-six percent required intravenous opioids and60% had adequate pain control. Twenty-six percent had orthostatic intolerance. The median postoperative LOS was 26.9 hours, time in PACU was 4.2 hours, time to PO intake was 6.5 hours, time to first void was 6.3 hours, time to first PT visit was 17.7 hours, time to PT clearance was 21.8 hours, and time to discharge readiness was 21.9 hours. Regression analysis showed that time to PT clearance, time to PO intake, time to voiding, time in PACU, and pain score at three hours had a significant effect on LOS.Unavailability of PT, surgery after 1 pm , orthostatic intolerance, inadequate pain control, prolonged PACU stay, and long feeding and voiding times were identified as modifiable factors preventing same-day discharge.4.

Study Design: Literature review. Objectives: To review the evidence for surface-based navigation in minimally-invasive spine surgery (MIS), provide an outline for its workflow, and present a wide range of MIS case examples in which surface-based navigation may be advantageous. Methods: A comprehensive review of the literature and compilation of findings related to surface-based navigation in MIS was performed. Workflow and case examples utilizing surface-based navigation were described. Results: The nascent literature regarding surface-based intraoperative navigation (ION) in spine surgery is encouraging and initial studies have shown that surface-based navigation can allow for accurate pedicle screw placement and decreased operative time, fluoroscopy time, and radiation exposure when compared to traditional fluoroscopic imaging. Surface-based navigation may be particularly useful in MIS cervical and lumbar decompressions and MIS lumbar instrumentation cases. Conclusions: Overall, it is possible that surface-based ION will become a mainstay in the armamentarium of enabling technologies utilized by minimally-invasive spine surgeons, but further studies are needed assessing its accuracy, complications, and cost-effectiveness.

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

BACKGROUND CONTEXT Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) is the workhorse minimally invasive treatment for patients with degenerative lumbar stenosis and spondylolisthesis refractory to nonoperative care. While the basic tenets of surgical treatment do not differ between minimally invasive and open techniques, surgeons performing MI-TLIF are more likely to attempt reduction of spondylolisthesis in order to optimize restoration of canal dimensions due to a greater reliance on indirect decompression, which has been shown to be effective. While intraoperative reduction is often successful, postoperative loss of reduction and slip recurrence can be seen. PURPOSE To determine the rate and clinical impact of slip recurrence after MI-TLIF with expandable cage technology. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING Retrospective cohort study. PATIENT SAMPLE Patients undergoing MI-TLIF for degenerative spondylolisthesis using an articulating, expandable cage OUTCOME MEASURES Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), including the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), visual analog scale (VAS) for back/leg pain, Short Form-12 (SF-12) and PROMIS Physical Function (PF) METHODS Patients undergoing MI-TLIF for degenerative spondylolisthesis using articulating, expandable cages from 2017-2019 were retrospectively studied. Lateral radiographs were reviewed and evaluated for the presence or absence of spondylolisthesis preoperatively, intraoperatively, and at follow-up times including 2 weeks, 6 weeks, 12 weeks, 6 months and 1-year postoperatively. Spondylolisthesis was measured from the posterior inferior corner of the cephalad vertebra to the posterior superior corner of the caudal vertebral, with any measurement >1mm classified as spondylolisthesis, and Meyerding grade was noted. Intraoperative reduction was measured and loss of reduction was defined as >1mm increase in spondylolisthesis comparing follow-up imaging to intraoperative films. PROMs were recorded at the preoperative and follow-up time points. Fusion was assessed 1-year postoperatively via CT. RESULTS A total of 63 patients and 70 levels were included, with mean age 59.8 years (SD,13.8). Nineteen levels (27.1%) had complete reduction intraoperatively, 40 (57.1%) had partial reduction and 11 (15.7%) had no reduction. Of the 30 levels with loss of reduction (50.8%), 20 (66.7%) occurred by 2 weeks postoperatively and 28 (93.3%) occurred by 12 weeks postoperatively. At 6 months, there were significant differences between those who had loss of reduction and those who did not in VAS back pain (3.0 vs 0.9, p=0.017) and SF-12 PCS (41.5 vs 50.0, p=0.035), but no differences were found between the groups for any instruments at any other time points. The overall fusion rate was 89.5% (34/38) at 1 year postoperatively. There was no significant difference in fusion rate between the loss of reduction (16/18) and no loss of reduction (18/20) groups. Patients with loss of reduction had no difference in reoperation rate (1/28) compared to those without loss of reduction (2/24). CONCLUSIONS While a majority of patients demonstrated reduction intraoperatively, 51% had loss of reduction, most commonly in the acute postoperative period. There were few differences in PROMs between patients who had loss of reduction and those who did not, suggesting that radiographic loss of reduction after MI-TLIF in the setting of degenerative spondylolisthesis may not be clinically meaningful. FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs.

Retrospective cohort study.The aim was to compare clinical outcomes in patients with significant cervical spondylosis treated with cervical disc replacement (CDR) compared with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF).As CDR utilization has increased over the past decade, recent studies have investigated the outcomes of CDR in patients with more significant spondylotic changes and demonstrated improved postoperative patient-reported outcomes (PROs). However, no prior study has investigated clinical outcomes of patients with significant spondylotic changes treated with CDR in comparison to ACDF.Patients who underwent 1-level or 2-level CDR or ACDF with significant cervical spondylosis, quantified using a validated grading scale, were identified, and prospectively collected data was retrospectively reviewed. The following PROs were analyzed: Neck Disability Index (NDI), visual analog scale-Neck, visual analog scale-Arm, and PROMIS Physical Function (PROMIS-PF) Computer Adaptive Test Score. Demographic, operative, and radiographic variables, and achievement of minimum clinically important difference (MCID) for each PRO were compared between the 2 groups.A total of 66 patients were included in the present study, of which 35 (53%) were treated with CDR and 31 (47%) with ACDF. The preoperative cervical spondylotic grade was similar between the 2 groups (1.8 vs. 2.2, P=0.27). At final follow-up, there was no significant difference in the absolute value for each PRO between the 2 groups (P0.19) and both groups demonstrated significant improvement in each PRO compared with preoperative values (P0.01). There was no significant difference in the percentage of patients achieving the MCID for each PRO when comparing CDR to ACDF (P0.09).A similar percentage of patients with significant degenerative cervical spondylosis achieved the MCID across multiple PROs when treated with CDR or ACDF. Patients in both treatment groups demonstrated significant improvement in all PROs assessed when compared with preoperative values.Level III.

Over the past decade, several review articles have evaluated the techniques and outcomes of robotics vs traditional methods in spine surgery. Recently, robot-assisted pedicle screw placement has emerged, representing an important milestone in the evolution of spine surgery. In the present article, the authors aim to provide the historical context regarding the use and growth of spinal robotics through the lens of the Industrial Revolution and the personal computer revolution. While the former provides insight into the current implications of robotics in spine surgery, the latter predicts future steps in this arena.

Objective: To review the evidence for the use of electromyography (EMG), motor-evoked potentials (MEPs), and somatosensory-evoked potentials (SSEPs) intraoperative neuromonitoring (IONM) strategies during lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF), as well as discuss the limitations associated with each technique.Methods: A comprehensive review of the literature and compilation of findings relating to clinical studies investigating the efficacy of EMG, MEP, SSEP, or combined IONM strategies during LLIF.Results: The evidence for the use of EMG is mixed with some studies demonstrating the efficacy of EMG in preventing postoperative neurologic injuries and other studies demonstrating a high rate of postoperative neurologic deficits with EMG monitoring. Multimodal IONM strategies utilizing MEPs or saphenous SSEPs to monitor the lumbar plexus may be promising strategies based on results from a limited number of studies.Conclusion: The use of traditional EMG during LLIF remains without consensus. There is a growing body of evidence utilizing multimodal IONM with MEPs or saphenous SSEPs demonstrating a possible decrease in postoperative neurologic injuries after LLIF. Future prospective studies, with clear definitions of neurologic injury, that evaluate different multimodal IONM strategies are needed to better assess the efficacy of IONM during LLIF.

As robotics in spine surgery has progressed over the past 2 decades, studies have shown mixed results on its clinical outcomes and economic impact. In this review, we highlight the evolution of robotic technology over the past 30 years, discussing early limitations and failures. We provide an overview of the history and evolution of currently available spinal robotic platforms and compare and contrast the available features of each. We conclude by summarizing the literature on robotic instrumentation accuracy in pedicle screw placement and clinical outcomes such as complication rates and briefly discuss the future of robotic spine surgery.

STUDY DESIGN This was a retrospective cohort review. OBJECTIVE The objective of this study was to determine the rate of fusion associated with an expandable cage and iliac crest bone graft in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA MI-TLIF is a commonly performed procedure, but challenges inherent in MI-TLIF technique can make achieving an interbody fusion difficult. METHODS A retrospective review was performed on consecutive patients treated with an MI-TLIF for degenerative lumbar pathology. Patients that completed patient-reported outcome measures and 1-year computed tomography (CT)-scans for fusion analysis were included. Fusion morphology was analyzed by evaluating CT scans for location of bridging trabecular bone in relation to the cage. Patients with bridging bone were considered fused. Preoperative and postoperative health-related quality of life scores were compared. A Kolmogrov-Smirnoff test was used to determine normality of health-related outcome scores. A Friedman 2-way analysis of variance by ranks with pairwise comparisons to determine statistical significance of differences between the date of a follow-up examination and preoperative examination was done. RESULTS Of 75 patients evaluated 23 patients were excluded due to loss to follow-up, adjacent segment degeneration, inability to obtain a CT scan, or reoperation for nonfusion related symptoms. Of 61 disk spaces that were included, 55 had bridging bone through the intervertebral cage, resulting in an overall fusion rate of 90.2%. There was a higher rate of fusion at L5-S1 as compared to L4-L5. There was mean improvement in patient-reported outcome measures for Oswestry Disability Index, Short Form-12 Physical Component Score, Visual Analog Scale Back/Leg pain, and Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System Physical Function. There were no complications associated with iliac crest bone graft harvesting. CONCLUSION Combining an expandable cage with iliac crest autograft bone harvested through a minimally invasive technique can allow for improved fusion rates without graft-site complications in MI-TLIF surgery.

Study Design: Retrospective cohort study. Objective: To (1) define utilization trends for navigated instrumented posterior lumbar fusion (PLF), (2) compare reasons and rates of revision at 30-day, 60-day, 90-day, and 1-year follow-up, and (3) compare 90-day perioperative complications between navigated versus conventional instrumented PLF. Methods: Patients who underwent navigated or conventional instrumented PLF were identified from the Humana insurance database using the PearlDiver Patient Records between 2007-2017. Usage of navigation was characterized. Patient demographics and operative characteristics (number of levels fused, interbody usage) were compared between the 2 treatment groups. Propensity score matching was done and comparisons were made for revision rates at different follow-up periods (categorized by reasons) and other 90-day perioperative complications. Results: This study included 1,648 navigated and 23 429 conventional instrumented PLF. Navigated cases increased over the years studied to approximately 10% in 2017. Statistical analysis after propensity score matching revealed significantly lower rates of hardware-related revision at 90-day follow-up in the navigated cohort (0.49% versus 1.15%, P = .033). At 1-year follow-up, the navigated cohort continued to have significantly lower rates of hardware-related revision (1.70% versus 2.73%, P = .044) as well as all cause revision (2.67% versus 4.00%, P = .032). There were no statistical differences between the 2 cohorts in any of the 90-day perioperative complications studied, such as cellulitis and blood transfusion ( P > .05 for all). Conclusions: These findings suggest that navigation is associated with reductions in hardware-related revisions after instrumented PLF. However, these results should be interpreted cautiously in the setting of potential confounding by other unmeasured variables.

There are data underlining the relationship between muscle health and spine related pathology, but little data regarding changes in paralumbar muscle associated with lumbar spondylolisthesis. We aimed to define changes in paralumbar muscle health associated with spondylolisthesis. A retrospective review was performed on consecutive patients with lumbar spine pathology requiring an operation. A pre-operative lumbar MRI was analysed for muscle health measurements including lumbar indentation value (LIV), paralumbar cross-sectional area divided by body mass index (PL-CSA/BMI), and Goutallier classification of fatty atrophy. All measurements were taken from an axial slice of a T2-weighted image at lumbar disc spaces. Baseline health-related quality of life scores (HRQOLs), narcotic use and areas of stenosis were tracked. We performed Chi-square analyses and student’s t test to determine statistically significant differences between cohorts. There were 307 patients (average age 56.1 ± 16.7 years, 141 females) included within our analysis. 112 patients had spondylolisthesis. There were no differences in baseline HRQOLs between the spondylolisthesis cohort (SC) and non-spondylolisthesis cohort (non-SC). There were significantly worse PL-CSA/BMI at L2-L3 (p = 0.03), L3-L4 (p = 0.04) and L4-L5 (p = 0.02) for the SC. Goutallier classification of paralumbar muscle was worse for SC at L1-L2 (p = 0.04) and at L4-L5 (p

Study design This was a retrospective review. Objective The objective of this study was to describe our technique and evaluate the time demand, radiation exposure, and outcomes of minimally invasive posterior cervical laminoforaminotomy (MI-PCLF) using skin-anchored intraoperative navigation (ION). Background Although bone-anchored trackers are most commonly used for ION, a novel technique utilizing noninvasive skin-anchored trackers has recently been described for lumbar surgery and has shown favorable results. There are currently no reports on the use of this technology for cervical surgery. Methods Time demand, radiation exposure, and perioperative outcomes of MI-PCLF using skin-anchored ION were evaluated. Results Twenty-one patients with 36 operative levels were included. Time for ION setup and operative time were a median of 34 and 62 minutes, respectively. Median radiation to the patient was 2.5 mGy from 10 seconds of fluoroscopy time. Radiation exposure to operating room personnel was negligible because they are behind a protective lead shield during ION image acquisition. There were no intraoperative complications or wrong-level surgeries. One patient required a repeat ION spin, and in 2 patients, ION was abandoned and standard fluoroscopy was used. Conclusions Skin-anchored ION for MI-PCLF is feasible, safe, and accurate. It results in short operative times, minimal complications, low radiation to the patient, and negligible radiation to operating room personnel.

Background: The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) was developed to provide an easily administered patient-outcome questionnaire that was adaptable to a variety of medical and surgical subspecialties. Numerous authors have examined the effectiveness of PROMIS in various areas of spine surgery. Our goal was to systematically review PROMIS scores compared with legacy patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) in spinal surgery and spine pathology. Methods: A systematic search of the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines was performed, yielding 254 unique studies reporting on “PROMIS” in “spine.” Each study was independently reviewed. A total of 16 studies were selected for inclusion. Results: The pooled sample size yielded a total of 4268 patients. In the cervical population, PROMIS physical function (PF; |r| = .47–.87, pain intensity (PIn; |r| = .61–.74), pain interference (PIf; |r| = .65–.88), and pain behavior (PB; |r| = .59–.74) correlated with the Neck Disability Index (NDI). PROMIS PF also strongly correlated with the modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association scale (mJOA; |r| = .61–.72). Among patients with lumbar pathology and adult spinal deformities, PROMIS PF (|r| = .53–.85), PIn (|r| = .73–.78), PIf (|r| = .59–.89), and PB (|r| = .58–.82) strongly correlated with the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). PF (|r| = .51–.78), PIf (|r| = .60–.70), and anxiety (|r| = .73) also strongly correlated with the Scoliosis Research Society (SRS)-22 and SRS-30. When comparing measures of global health, PROMIS PF was strongly correlated with the Short Form (SF)-12 and SF-36 (|r| = .50–.85). On average, all PROMIS domains required less time to complete (49.6–56 seconds) than the ODI (176 seconds), NDI (190.3 seconds), SF-12 (214 seconds), and SF-36 physical function domains (99 seconds). The responsiveness of the PROMIS PF, PIf, and PB was comparable to that of legacy measures ODI, NDI, and SF-12. Conclusions: The PROMIS PF, PIn, PIf, and PB demonstrated moderate to strong correlations with NDI, mJOA, ODI, SRS, and SF-12 measures in various populations of spine patients. All PROMIS domains had decreased time to completion and similar responsiveness compared with legacy measures. Level of Evidence: 2. Clinical Relevance: These results highlight the potential of PROMIS as a valid and reliable tool to assess patient-reported outcomes in spinal surgery patients and support more widespread use of PROMIS in spine.

Surgical counseling enables shared decision-making (SDM) by improving patients' understanding.To provide answers to frequently asked questions (FAQs) in minimally invasive lumbar spine surgery.Retrospective review of prospectively collected data.Patients who underwent primary tubular minimally invasive lumbar spine surgery in form of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF), decompression alone, or microdiscectomy and had a minimum of 1-year follow-up.(1) Surgical (radiation exposure and intraoperative complications) (2)Immediate postoperative (length of stay [LOS] and complications) (3) Clinical outcomes (Visual Analog Scale- back and leg, VAS; Oswestry Disability Index, ODI; 12-Item Short Form Survey Physical Component Score, SF-12 PCS; Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function, PROMIS PF; Global Rating Change, GRC; return to activities; complications/reoperations) METHODS: The outcome measures were analyzed to provide answers to ten FAQs that were compiled based on the authors' experience and a review of literature. Changes in VAS back, VAS leg, ODI, and SF-12 PCS from preoperative values to the early (6 months) and late (6 months) postoperative time points were analyzed with Wilcoxon Signed Rank Tests. % of patients achieving minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for these patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) at the two time points was evaluated. Changes in PROs from preoperative values too early (6 months) and late (≥6 months) postoperative time points were analyzed within each of the three groups. Percentage of patients achieving MCID was also evaluated.Three hundred sixty-six patients (104 TLIF, 147 decompression, 115 microdiscectomy) were included. The following FAQs were answered: (1) Will my back pain improve? Most patients report improvement by50%. About 60% of TLIF, decompression, and microdiscectomy patients achieved MCID at ≥6 months. (2) Will my leg pain improve? Most patients report improvement by50%. 56% of TLIF, 67% of decompression, and 70% of microdiscectomy patients achieved MCID at ≥6 months. (3) Will my activity level improve? Most patients report significant improvement. Sixty-six percent of TLIF, 55% of decompression, and 75% of microdiscectomy patients achieved MCID for SF-12 PCS. (4) Is there a chance I will get worse? Six percent after TLIF, 14% after decompression, and 5% after microdiscectomy. (5) Will I receive a significant amount of radiation? The radiation exposure is likely to be acceptable and nearly insignificant in terms of radiation-related risks. (6) What is the likelihood that I will have a complication? 17.3% (15.4% minor, 1.9% major) for TLIF, 10% (9.3% minor and 0.7% major) for decompression, and 1.7% (all minor) for microdiscectomy (7) Will I need another surgery? Six percent after TLIF, 16.3% after decompression, 13% after microdiscectomy. (8) How long will I stay in the hospital? Most patients get discharged on postoperative day one after TLIF and on the same day after decompression and microdiscectomy. (9) When will I be able to return to work?80% of patients return to work (average: 25 days after TLIF, 14 days after decompression, 11 days after microdiscectomy). (10) Will I be able to drive again?90% of patients return to driving (average: 22 days after TLIF, 11 days after decompression, 14 days after microdiscectomy).These concise answers to the FAQs in minimally invasive lumbar spine surgery can be used by physicians as a reference to enable patient education.

BACKGROUND : Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) is used to treat multiple conditions, including spondylolisthesis, degenerative disc disorders (DDD), adjacent segment disease (ASD), and degenerative scoliosis. While many advocate for posterior fixation with LLIF, stand-alone LLIF is increasingly being performed. Yet the fusion rate for stand-alone LLIF is unknown. PURPOSE : Determine the fusion rate for stand-alone LLIF. STUDY DESIGN : Systematic Review. METHODS : We queried MEDLINE, COCHRANE, and EMBASE for literature on stand-alone LLIF fusion rate with a publication cutoff of April 2020. LLIF surgery was considered stand-alone when not paired with supplemental posterior fixation. Cohort fusion rate differences were calculated and tested for significance (p RESULTS : A total of 2,735 publications were assessed. Nineteen studies met inclusion criteria, including 736 patients and 1,103 vertebral levels. Mean age was 61.7 years with BMI 26.5 kg/m2. Mean fusion rate was 85.6% (range, 53.0%-100.0%), which did not different significant by number of levels fused (1-level, 2-level, and ≥3-level). Use of rhBMP-2 was reported in 39.3% of subjects, with no difference in fusion rates between studies using rhBMP-2 (87.7%) and those in which rhBMP-2 was not used (83.9%, OR=1.37, p=0.448). Fusion rate did not differ with the addition of a lateral plate, or by underlying diagnosis. All-complication rate was 42.2% and mean reoperation rate was 11.1%, with 2.3% reoperation due to pseudarthrosis. Of the studies comparing stand-alone to circumferential fusion, pooled fusion rate was found to be 80.4% vs. 91.0% (p=0.637). CONCLUSIONS Stand-alone LLIF yields high fusion rates overall. The wide range of reported fusion rates and lower fusion rates in studies involving subsequent surgical reoperation highlights the importance of being well-trained in this technique and employing a rigorous algorithm when indicating patients for stand-alone LLIF. Future research should focus on examining risk factors and patient-reported outcomes in stand-alone LLIF.

STUDY DESIGN A retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to identify an association between preoperative opioid use and reoperations rates. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA Chronic opioid use is a public health crisis in the United States and has been linked to worse outcomes after lumbar spine surgery. However, no studies have identified an association between preoperative opioid use and reoperations rates. METHODS A retrospective cohort study was conducted using patients from one private insurance database who underwent primary lumbar decompression/discectomy (LDD) or posterior/transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF/TLIF). Preoperative use of five specific opioid medications (tramadol, hydromorphone, oxycodone, hydromorphone, and extended-release oxycodone) was categorized as acute (within 3 months), subacute (acute use and use between 3 and 6 months), or chronic (subacute use and use before 6 months). Multivariate regression, controlling for multilevel surgery, age, sex, and Charlson Comorbidity Index, was used to determine the association of each medication on reoperations within 5 years. RESULTS A total of 11,551 patients undergoing LDD and 3291 patients undergoing PLIF/TLIF without previous lumbar spine surgery were identified. In the LDD group, opioid-naive patients had a 5-year reoperation rate of 2.8%, compared with 25.0% and 8.0 with chronic preoperative use of hydromorphone and oxycodone, respectively. In multivariate analysis, any preoperative use of oxycodone was associated with increased reoperations (odds ratios [OR] = 1.4, 2.0, and 2.3, for acute, subacute, and chronic use; P

Study design This was a retrospective review. Objective Provide a validated method of radiographic evaluation of cervical disk replacement (CDR) patients linked to outcomes. Summary of background data Preoperative radiographic criteria for CDRs and the impact of intraoperative positioning remain without formalized guidelines. The association between preexisting degenerative changes, optimal implant positioning, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are not well understood. Our study establishes a systematic radiographic evaluation of preoperative spondylosis, implant placement, and associated clinical outcomes. Methods Preoperative radiographs for CDR patients were evaluated for disk height, facet arthrosis, and uncovertebral joint degeneration. Postoperative radiographs were scored based on the position of the CDR implant on anterior-posterior (AP) and lateral radiographs. PROMs including Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) arm pain, VAS neck pain, Neck Disability Index (NDI), Short Form 12 physical health (SF12-PCS) and mental health (SF12-M) were collected preoperatively, at early follow, and at late follow-up. Results A total of 115 patients were included. Preoperative disk height had the highest reliability, intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.798). Facet arthrosis had the lowest intraclass correlation coefficient at 0.563. Preoperative disk height scores showed a significant correlation with AP radiographs and implant positioning score. Patients with more advanced uncovertebral degenerative changes showed less improvement 6 months postoperatively, based on SF-12 PCS scores (R=0.446, P=0.025). Postoperative implant position on lateral radiograph showed a significant correlation with SF-12 MCS scores at follow-up beyond 6 months (R=0.385, P=0.011). Overall postoperative implant position scores demonstrated significant correlation with SF-12 PCS (R=0.350, P=0.046) scores. Conclusion This study provides a systematic method of evaluation of preoperative and intraoperative radiographs that can optimize outcomes. On the basis of our study, spine surgeons performing cervical disk replacement surgery should consider: (a) the presence of preexisting uncovertebral joint degeneration can negatively impact outcomes, (b) achieving optimal implant positioning can be increasingly difficult with more severe loss of disk height, and (c) overall implant position as judged on AP and lateral fluoroscopy can impact outcomes.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT Decompression without fusion is one of common surgical treatments for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) with spondylolisthesis, however, some patients will require a subsequent fusion at a later time. No studies have examined the rate and timing of decompression alone for spondylolisthesis in a large population with long term follow-up and it is unclear what the risk factors are for subsequent fusion. No studies have examined the rate, timing and risk factors of decompression alone for spondylolisthesis in large population with long term follow-up. PURPOSE The aim of this study is to examine the rate, timing and risk factors of subsequent fusion for patients after decompression alone for LSS with spondylolisthesis. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING Retrospective cohort study PATIENT SAMPLE Patients with spondylolisthesis followed more than 5 years after decompression alone at one or two levels for primary lumbar surgery were extracted from both public and private insurance resources in a nationwide insurer database. A total of 5,875 patients in the public insurance population (P1) and 1,456 patients in the private insurance population (P2) were included. OUTCOME MEASURES The rate of patients who needed subsequent fusion was examined at 1 year, 2 years and 5 years. The timing of the subsequent fusion was also investigated. Risk factors for subsequent fusion were evaluated by multivariate logistic regression controlling for age, gender, comorbidities and the presence or absence of claudication. METHODS Age, gender, type of spondylolisthesis (degenerative or isthmic) and comorbidities were collected in each population for demographics. Thirty comorbidities were identified using ICD-9 codes as previously described by Elixhauser et al. Risk factors for subsequent fusion were evaluated by multivariate logistic regression controlling for age, gender, comorbidities and the presence or absence of claudication. RESULTS The rates of patients who needed subsequent fusion were 1.9% at 1 year, 3.5% at 2 years and 6.7% at 5 years in Population 1, whereas they were 4.3% at 1 year, 8.9% at 2 years, 14.6% at 5 years in Population 2. The time to subsequent fusion was 730 (365-1234) days and 588 (300-998) days in P1 and P2, respectively. Age under 70 years, presence of claudication and rheumatoid arthritis (RA) / collagen vascular diseases (CVD) were common risk factors for subsequent fusion at 5 years in both populations. For patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis, RA/CVD was also a risk factor for subsequent fusion at 2 years. CONCLUSIONS Decompression alone, which is a less invasive procedure, demonstrated good outcomes with a low rate of subsequent fusion for LSS with spondylolisthesis. Age under 70 years, presence of claudication and RA/CVD were associated with a higher rate of subsequent fusion at 5 years, and for degenerative spondylolisthesis the presence of RA/CVD had an impact on the rate of subsequent fusion at 2 years. FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs.

OBJECTIVE To evaluate outcomes of cervical disc replacement (CDR) in patients with nonlordotic alignment. METHODS Patients who underwent CDR were retrospectively reviewed and divided into 3 cohorts: (1) neutral/lordotic segmental and C2-7 Cobb angle (L), (2) nonlordotic segmental Cobb angle, lordotic C2-7 Cobb angle (NL-S), and (3) nonlordotic segmental and C2-7 Cobb angle (NL-SC). Radiographic and patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) were compared. RESULTS One-hundred five patients were included (L: 37, NL-S: 30, NL-SC: 38). A significant gain in segmental lordosis was seen in all cohorts at < 6 months (L: -1.90° [p = 0.007]; NL-S: -5.16° [p < 0.0001]; NL-SC: -6.00° [p < 0.0001]) and ≥ 6 months (L: -2.07° [p = 0.031; NL-S: -6.04° [p < 0.0001]; NL-SC: -6.74° [p < 0.0001]), with greater lordosis generated in preoperatively nonlordotic cohorts (p < 0.0001). C2-7 lordosis improved in the preoperatively nonlordotic cohort (NL-SC: 8.04°) at follow-up of < 6 months (-4.15°, p = 0.003) and ≥ 6 months (-6.40°, p = 0.003), but not enough to create lordotic alignment (< 6 months: 3.89°; ≥ 6 months: 4.06°). All cohorts showed improvement in Neck Disability Index, visual analogue scale (VAS) neck, and VAS arm, without significant difference among groups in the amount of improvement ( ≥ 6-month PROMs follow-up = 69%). CONCLUSION In patients without major kyphotic deformity, CDR has the potential to generate and maintain lordosis and improve PROMs in the short-term, and can be an effective treatment option for patients with nonlordotic alignment.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT Dysphagia following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is a common complication, the etiology of which has not been established. Given that one potential mechanism for dysphagia is local tissue edema, it is thought that a greater number of operative levels may result in higher dysphagia rates. However, prior reports comparing one-level to two-level ACDF have shown varying results. PURPOSE To determine if there is a difference in dysphagia between one-level and two-level ACDF. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING Retrospective review of prospectively collected data. PATIENT SAMPLE Patients who underwent one- or two-level ACDF with a plate-graft construct by a single-surgeon at a high-volume academic medical center. OUTCOME MEASURES Neck Disability Index, Visual Analog Scale for neck pain and arm pain, Short Form-12 physical and mental health components, and Swallowing Quality of Life (SWAL-QOL) Questionnaire. METHODS Patient demographics, operative data, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs; Neck Disability Index, Visual Analog Scale, Short Form-12, and SWAL-QOL) of patients undergoing one- and two-level ACDF were compared using Fisher exact test for categorical variables and Student's t test for continuous variables. Regression analyses were conducted to identify factors associated with 6- and 12-week SWAL-QOL scores in order to determine whether the number of surgical levels impacts these outcomes. RESULTS Fifty-eight patients (22 one-level and 36 two-level ACDF) were included. Patients undergoing two-level fusions were older (54.17+8.67 vs 48.06+10.68 years, p=.02) and had longer operative times (69.08+10.51 vs 53.5+14.35 minutes, p 61.5 minutes had a sensitivity and specificity of 62.1% for worse dysphagia scores at 6 weeks compared with baseline. CONCLUSIONS The results of our study indicate that there is no difference in the degree of postoperative dysphagia in one- versus two-level ACDF. However, other variables associated with increased postoperative dysphagia in our population included younger age, male sex, procedural time >61.5 minutes, and worse preoperative dysphagia. Larger studies are required to confirm these findings and identify additional risk factors for postoperative dysphagia.

STUDY DESIGN Retrospective cohort. OBJECTIVE To describe our technique for and evaluate the time demand, radiation exposure and outcomes of skin-anchored intraoperative three-dimensional navigation (ION) in minimally invasive (MIS) lumbar surgery, and to compare these parameters to 2D fluoroscopy for MI-TLIF. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA Limited visualization of anatomic landmarks and narrow access corridor in MIS procedures result in greater reliance on image guidance. Although two-dimensional fluoroscopy has historically been used, ION is gaining traction. METHODS Patients who underwent MIS lumbar microdiscectomy, laminectomy, or MI-TLIF using skin-anchored ION and MI-TLIF by the same surgeon using 2D fluoroscopy were selected. Operative variables, radiation exposure, and short-term outcomes of all procedures were summarized. Time-demand and radiation exposure of fluoroscopy and ION for MI-TLIF were compared. RESULTS Of the 326 patients included, 232 were in the ION cohort (92 microdiscectomies, 65 laminectomies, and 75 MI-TLIFs) and 94 in the MI-TLIF using 2D fluoroscopy cohort. Time for ION setup and image acquisition was a median of 22 to 24 minutes. Total fluoroscopy time was a median of 10 seconds for microdiscectomy, 9 for laminectomy, and 26 for MI-TLIF. Radiation dose was a median of 15.2 mGy for microdiscectomy, 16.6 for laminectomy, and 44.6 for MI-TLIF, of this, 93%, 95%, and 37% for microdiscectomy, laminectomy, and MI-TLIF, respectively were for ION image acquisition, with the rest attributable to the procedure. There were no wrong-level surgeries. Compared with fluoroscopy, ION for MI-TLIF resulted in lower operative times (92 vs. 108 min, P

BACKGROUND: Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) is the treatment of choice for lumbar spinal stenosis and spondylolisthesis. The procedure can be performed through a traditional open approach (O-TLIF) or through minimally invasive techniques (MI-TLIF). Spinal surgeries in obese patients can pose risks, including increased rates of infection and thromboembolic events. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We sought to systematically review the literature on the differences between MI-TLIF and O-TLIF in the obese patient in terms of complication rate, functional outcomes, blood loss, and length of hospital stay. METHODS: We used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to systematically search PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library for studies published through February 2019 and identified those comparing the outcomes of O-TLIF and MI-TLIF in obese patients. The primary outcome was complication rate (total, infections, dural tears); secondary outcomes were blood loss, length of hospital stay, and functional scores. Two authors independently reviewed the studies using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and data were pooled using the Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model. RESULTS: In the sample of 430 patients, the average age was 53.5 years, there were 153 men and 203 women, and the average body mass index was 33.6. Complications were significantly higher in O-TLIF than in MI-TLIF (OR = 0.420 [95% CI: 0.199, 0.887]; I(2) = 45.20%). No difference was detected between the two groups for visual analog scale back pain scores and Oswestry Disability Index scores between the pre-operative and last follow-up visits (SMD = –0.034 [95% CI –0.695, 0.627]; I(2) = 62.14% and SMD = 0.617 [95% CI: –1.082, 2.316]; I(2) = 25%, respectively). Blood loss was significantly lower in MI-TLIF compared to O-TLIF (SMD = –426.736 [95% CI: –490.720, –362.752]; I(2) = 70.53%), as was the duration of hospital stay (SMD = –1.079 [95% CI: –1.591, –0.208]; I(2) = 84.3%). CONCLUSION: MI-TLIF has equivalent efficacy to O-TLIF in obese patients at long-term follow-up. In addition, complication rate, blood loss, and length of hospital stay were lower in MI-TLIF than in O-TLIF. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s11420-019-09735-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Retrospective cohort study.The aim was to compare the minimally clinically important difference (MCID) across multiple patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients undergoing cervical disc replacement (CDR) for cervical spondylotic radiculopathy versus myeloradiculopathy.To date, a limited number of studies have demonstrated mostly similar results in patients with cervical spondylotic radiculopathy or myeloradiculopathy undergoing CDR. However, each of these previous studies have focused on statistically significant differences, which may not correlate with patient perceived improvements in outcomes or success.Patients who underwent 1 or 2-level CDR with radiculopathy versus myeloradiculopathy were identified, and prospectively collected data was retrospectively reviewed. Demographic variables, preoperative diagnosis, and operative variables were collected for each patient. The following PROs were prospectively collected: Neck Disability Index (NDI), visual analog scale (VAS)-Neck, VAS-Arm, Short Form-12 Health Survey (SF-12) Physical Component Score (PCS), SF-12 Mental Component Score (MCS), PROMIS Physical Function (PF). An MCID analysis of PROs for each diagnosis group was performed and the percentage of patients achieving the MCID was compared between the two diagnosis groups.Eight-five patients, of which 56% had radiculopathy and 44% had myeloradiculopathy. MCID analysis demonstrated that at 6-week, 12-week, and final postoperative follow-up there was no significant difference in the percentage of patients with radiculopathy or myeloradiculopathy achieving the MCID for each PRO assessed. In both diagnosis groups the percentage of patients achieving the MCID for each PRO continued to increase from the 6-week to final postoperative follow-up except for the SF-12 MCS in patients with myeloradiculopathy.The percentage of patients achieving the MCID was not significantly different at each postoperative period assessed in the radiculopathy and myeloradiculopathy groups treated with CDR. In addition, the percentage of patients achieving the MCID continued to increase from 6 weeks to final follow-up in both groups for almost all PROs assessed.

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

Background: The gold standard for percutaneous pedicle screw placement is 2-dimensional (2D) fluoroscopy. Data are sparse on the accuracy of 3-dimensional (3D) navigation percutaneous screw placement in minimally invasive spine procedures. Objective: We sought to compare a single surgeon’s percutaneous pedicle screw placement accuracy using 2D fluoroscopy versus 3D navigation, as well as to investigate the effect of facet orientation on facet violation when using 2D fluoroscopy. Methods: We conducted a retrospective radiographic study of consecutive cohort of patients who underwent percutaneous lumbar instrumentation using either 2D fluoroscopy or 3D navigation. All procedures were performed by a single surgeon at 2 academic institutions between 2011 and 2018. Radiographic measurement of screw accuracy was assessed using a postoperative computed tomographic scan. The primary outcome was facet violation, and secondary outcomes were endplate/tip breaches, the Gertzbein-Robbins classification for cortical breaches, and the Simplified Screw Accuracy grade. Statistical comparisons were made between screws placed using 2D fluoroscopy versus 3D navigation. Axial facet angles were also measured to correlate with facet violation rates. Results: In the 138 patients included, 376 screws were placed with fluoroscopy and 193 with navigation. Superior (unfused) level facet violation was higher with 2D fluoroscopy than with 3D navigation (9% vs 0.5%), which comprises the main cause for poor screw placement. Axial facet angles exceeding 45° at L4 and 60° at L5 were correlated with facet violations. Conclusion: This retrospective study found that 3D navigation is associated with lower facet violation rates in percutaneous lumbar pedicle screw placement when compared with 2D fluoroscopy. These findings suggest that 3D navigation may be of particular value when facet joints are coronally oriented.

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

Objective Cervical disc replacement (CDR) is an effective long-term treatment for both cervical radiculopathy and myelopathy. However, there may be unique differences in the early postoperative clinical improvement for patients with and without myelopathy. In addition, previous studies using CDR to treat cervical myelopathy were underpowered to determine risk factors for relatively postoperative medical complications. Methods Two different cohorts were studied. A local cohort of patients undergoing CDR by a single surgeon was utilized to study the early postoperative course of clinical improvement. In addition, a national cohort of patients undergoing CDR in the 2015 and 2016 National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was utilized to study differences in postoperative medical complications after CDR. Patients with a preoperative diagnosis of cervical myelopathy were identified in both cohorts, and perioperative outcomes and complications were compared to patients without myelopathy. Results A total of 43 patients undergoing CDR were included in the institutional cohort, of those 16 patients (37% of cohort) had a preoperative diagnosis of cervical myelopathy. A total of 3,023 patients undergoing CDR were included in the national cohort, of those 411 (13% of cohort) had a preoperative diagnosis of cervical myelopathy. In the institutional cohort, the nonmyelopathy group had a lower initial Neck Disability Index (NDI) and saw a faster improvement in NDI by 2 weeks postoperative. However, at 24 weeks there was no significant difference between groups in terms of NDI. Interestingly, only the nonmyelopathy cohort had a significant improvement in modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association score by 6 weeks (p0.05) between myelopathy and nonmyelopathy patients. Conclusion Significant improvements in NDI, visual analogue scale (VAS)-arm pain, and VAS-neck pain are seen in both myelopathy and nonmyelopathy populations undergoing CDR by 6 weeks postoperatively. However, nonmyelopathy populations improve faster by 2 weeks postoperatively. In the national cohort analysis, medical complications were similarly low in both myelopathy and nonmyelopathy groups.