Search

Study Design: This is a retrospective cohort study., Objective: In patients undergoing elective posterior cervical laminectomy and fusion (PCLF) with a minimum of 5-year follow-up, we sought to compare reoperation rates between patients with an upper instrumented vertebra (UIV) of C2 versus C3/4., Summary of Background Data: The long-term outcomes of choosing between C2 versus C3/4 as the UIV in PCLF remain unclear., Methods: A single-institution, retrospective cohort study from a prospective registry was conducted of patients undergoing elective, degenerative PCLF from December 2010 to June 2018. The primary exposure was UIV of C2 versus C3/4. The primary outcome was reoperation. Multivariable logistic regression controlled for age, smoking, diabetes, and fusion to the thoracic spine., Results: Of the 68 patients who underwent PCLF with 5-year follow-up, 27(39.7%) had a UIV of C2, and 41(60.3%) had a UIV of either C3/4. Groups had similar duration of symptoms (P=0.743), comorbidities (P>0.999), and rates of instrumentation to the thoracic spine (70.4% vs. 53.7%, P=0.210). The C2 group had significantly longer operative time (231.8±65.9 vs. 181.6±44.1 mins, P<0.001) and more fused segments (5.9±1.8 vs. 4.2±0.9, P<0.001). Reoperation rate was lower in the C2 group compared with C3/4 (7.4% vs. 19.5%), though this did not reach statistical significance (P=0.294). Multivariable logistic regression showed increased odds of reoperation for the C3/4 group compared with the C2 group (OR=3.29, 95%CI=0.59-18.11, P=0.170), though statistical significance was not reached. Similarly, the C2 group had a lower rate of instrumentation failure (7.4% vs. 12.2%, P=0.694) and adjacent segment disease/disk herniation (0% vs. 7.3%, P=0.271), though neither trend attained statistical significance., Conclusions: Patients with a UIV of C2 had less than half the number of reoperations and less adjacent segment disease, though neither trend was statistically significant. Despite a lack of statistical significance, whether a clinically meaningful difference exists between UIV of C2 versus C3/4 should be validated in larger samples with long-term follow-up., Level of Evidence: Level-3., Competing Interests: S.L.Z. reports being an unaffiliated neurotrauma consultant for the National Football League. B.F.S. is a consultant for Nuvasive and Carbofix and receives institutional research support from Nuvasive and Stryker Spine. A.M.A. receives institutional research support from Stryker Spine. The remaining authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Study Design: Retrospective review., Objective: The aim was to determine if preoperative spinal instability neoplastic scores (SINSs) and Tokuhashi prognostication scores differed in patients receiving surgical care before and during the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic., Summary of Background Data: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused delays in scheduling nonemergent surgeries. Delay in presentation and/or surgical treatment for oncology patients with metastatic spinal disease could result in progression of the disease, which can complicate surgical care and worsen patient outcomes., Materials and Methods: Retrospective review of electronic medical records between March 1, 2019 and March 1, 2021 at a tertiary medical center was performed to identify patients who underwent surgery for metastatic spine disease. Primary spinal tumors were excluded. Patients were separated into two groups base on their surgery date: before the COVID-19 pandemic (March 1, 2019-February 29, 2020) and during the COVID-19 pandemic (March 1, 2020-March 1, 2021). Primary outcomes included SINS and Tokuhashi scores. A variety of statistical tests were performed to compare the groups., Results: Fifty-two patients who underwent surgery before the COVID-19 pandemic were compared to 41 patients who underwent surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic. There was a significant difference between the before and during groups with respect to SINS (9.31±2.39 vs . 11.00±2.74, P =0.002) and Tokuhashi scores (9.27±2.35 vs . 7.88±2.85, P =0.012). Linear regression demonstrated time of surgery (before or during COVID-19 restrictions) was a significant predictor of SINS (β=1.55, 95% CI: 0.42-2.62, P =0.005) and Tokuhashi scores (β=-1.41, 95% CI: -2.49 to -0.34, P =0.010)., Conclusions: Patients with metastatic spinal disease who underwent surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic had higher SINS, lower Tokuhashi scores and similar Skeletal Oncology Research Group scores compared to patients who underwent surgery before the pandemic. This suggests the pandemic has impacted the instability of disease at presentation in patients with spinal metastases, but has not impacted surgical prognosis, as there were no differences in Skeletal Oncology Research Group scores and the difference in Tokuhashi scores is most likely not clinically significant., Competing Interests: Dr. S.L.Z. reports being an unaffiliated neurotrauma consultant for the National Football League. Dr. B.F.S. reports educational consulting for Medical Device Business Services and a grant from Stryker Spine (R1160501). The remaining authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Despite recent advances in applied instruments and surgical techniques, the incidence of iatrogenic durotomies caused by traditional techniques remains significant. The ultrasonic bone scalpel (UBS) has been shown to improve speed and reduce complications in laminectomies in the cervical and thoracic spine when compared to traditional methods utilizing high-speed burr, punch forceps, or rongeurs. Thus, in this study, we aim to evaluate whether the use of the UBS in the lumbar spine would result in equivalent safety, efficacy, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) improvement when compared to traditional methods of laminectomy., Methods: Data from a prospectively collected, single-institution registry was queried between January 1, 2019 and September 1, 2021 for patients with a primary diagnosis of lumbar stenosis who received a laminectomy (with or without fusion) using traditional methods or UBS method. Outcomes included 3-month and 12-month values for all PROs Measurement Information System (PROMIS) subdomains, Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) pain score, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) percentage, Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ-9) score, operative complications, reoperations, and readmissions. Covariates selected for matching included age, operation type, and number of levels. A variety of statistical tests were utilized., Results: As per our findings, 2:1 propensity matching resulted in 64 "traditional group" patients and 32 "UBS group" patients. Post-match analysis found no differences between the traditional and UBS groups for demographic and baseline measures except for race and ethnicity. For the matched sample, no differences were noted in PROs, reoperations, or readmissions. There was a significant difference in rates of durotomies between the traditional and UBS groups (12.5% vs. 0.0%, p=0.049)., Conclusions: Results showed the high-frequency oscillation technology implemented by the UBS helps to decrease the rate of injury to the dura, thus reducing the overall incidence of iatrogenic durotomies. We believe these data provide valuable information to surgeons and patients about the safety and efficacy of the UBS in performing lumbar laminectomies., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: Dr. Zuckerman reports being an unaffiliated neurotrauma consultant for the National Football League. Dr. Stephens reports educational consulting for Medical Device Business Services and a grant from Stryker Spine [R1160501]. The other authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 The Japanese Society for Spine Surgery and Related Research.)