Search

The primary aim of our study is to assess the extent to which healthcare systems advertise their spine care programs as multidisciplinary and furthermore clarify whether these institutions accurately reflect this description in their online access to spine care. The secondary aim of our study is to determine what proportion of institutions enable patients to self-schedule appointments online and select providers.Newsweek's 2021 list entitled "Best Hospitals 2021-United States" was utilized to obtain an extensive list of top-rated hospitals in the country. Institutions were considered to be advertising themselves as multidisciplinary if they used this term or similar wording (such as "care encompassing broad range of specialties", "interdisciplinary", "multidisciplinary"). Each institution's website was additionally assessed for the existence of: (I) a standard overview website or multiple individual sites for respective spine-focused divisions (i.e., orthopaedic surgery, neurosurgery, physical medicine and rehabilitation, anesthesiology); (II) online self-scheduling; (III) triage questions prior to requesting appointments; and (IV) selection choice for specific providers.In total, 334 institutions were included in analysis, with 66% utilizing multidisciplinary terminology in describing their institution on their website. However, most institutions only had a standard overview website with no separate websites for respective divisions (54%). Institutions described as multidisciplinary were more likely to have a link on a central page to each division (31%Though the majority of spine care centers are described as multidisciplinary, the patient experience when navigating websites online does not always meet this standard. Further progress in website design, automated triaging, and online scheduling are needed to truly achieve multidisciplinary care.

MINI Telemedicine in spine care is evolving; patient valuation of virtual care is critical to its utility and longevity. Our mixed methods investigation revealed that patients prefer in person care, particularly for first time visits. However, patients also envision the effective integration of telemedicine and in person care. STUDY DESIGN Survey-based study. OBJECTIVE We performed a mixed methods study involving patients using telemedicine for spine care. We sought to understand factors influencing the utilization and evaluation of this modality. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA Telemedicine has been integrated into routine spine care; its long-term viability will depend not only on optimizing its safety, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness, but also on understanding patient valuation of its benefits and limitations. METHODS We used a clinical registry to identify spine patients seen virtually by providers at our tertiary academic medical center between March and September of 2020. We distributed an online survey that queried patients' experiences with telemedicine. We performed statistical analyses of Likert-scale questions and a thematic analysis of free-form responses. Sociodemographic data were abstracted and analyzed. RESULTS Overall, we evaluated 139 patient surveys. High levels of patient-rated care and patient-rated experience were observed for both in-person and telemedicine visits; however, in-person visits were rated significantly higher in both respects (9.3/10 vs. 8.7/10 for patient-rated care, p

PURPOSE Remote patient monitoring (RPM) has revolutionized the landscape of healthcare. From humble beginnings rooted in landline home telephone calls to present-day devices with near instantaneous wireless connectivity, the evolution of technology has ushered in an era of digital medicine and remote care. Presently, a vast array of healthcare data points can be automatically generated, analyzed, and forwarded to providers to supplement clinical decision-making. While RPM originated and was popularized within medicine, its role in orthopedics, and particularly within spine surgery, is evolving. We sought to provide an overview of RPM within orthopedics, with specific attention on spine care, analyzing its origins, present-day form, and prospects. METHODS We reviewed the literature to date as it pertains to RPM within healthcare at large, orthopedics, and spine care. RESULTS We detail the development and clinical use of wearable technology and smart implants, examining the underlying technology and evaluating the spectrum of their present-day and potential applications. CONCLUSIONS Technological advancements are not only reshaping the paradigm of musculoskeletal care but are also redefining the physician-patient relationship as well as reimagining traditional perspectives on healthcare data collection and privacy.

Study design A retrospective case series study. Objective To analyze the epidemiology of diagnoses of degenerative cervical and lumbar spinal conditions among Major League Baseball (MLB) and Minor League Baseball (MiLB) players. Summary of background data Repetitive high-energy forces in professional baseball players may predispose them to degenerative cervical and lumbar spinal conditions. There is a lack of data concerning the epidemiology of these injuries in professional baseball. Methods De-identified data on spine injuries were collected from all MLB and MiLB teams from 2011-2016 from the MLB-commissioned Health and Injury Tracking System (HITS) database. Rates of diagnoses of common degenerative spinal conditions as well as their impact on days missed due to injury, necessitation of surgery, and player participation and career-ending status was assessed. Injury rates were reported as injuries per 1,000 athlete-exposures (AE) in concordance with prior studies. Results Over 2011-2016, 4,246 days of play were missed due to 172 spine-related injuries. 73.3% were related to the lumbar spine and 26.7% to the cervical spine. There were similar rates of surgery required for these injuries (18.3% of lumbar injuries vs. 13.0% of cervical injuries, p = 0.2164). Mean age of players with cervical injuries was higher compared to the lumbar group (27.5 vs 25.4, p = 0.0119). Average number of days missed due to lumbar injuries was significantly higher than those due to cervical injuries (34.1 vs. 21.6 days, p = 0.0468). Spine injury rates for pitchers was significantly higher than those of other position players (0.086 per 1,000 AEs vs. 0.037, p Conclusion Neurologic diagnoses relating to the cervical and lumbar spine lead to substantial disability among MLB and MiLB players as well as days missed from play. Pitchers have over double the rates of injury compared to other position players. Lumbar conditions were associated with significantly higher numbers of days missed from play.Level of Evidence: 4.

STUDY DESIGN Retrospective case series study. OBJECTIVE Evaluate trends and complications following posterior spinal instrumented fusion for deformity with/without pelvic fixation using the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery Part II Oral Examination Candidate Case List data from 2008 to 2017. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA Complication rates for cases with pelvic fixation are widely reported in spine deformity literature but are typically derived from practices of senior surgeons. As surgical experience and clinical volume are shown to decrease complication rates, spine surgeons newly in practice may have higher risks of such events. MATERIALS AND METHODS Surgical cases submitted by candidates taking the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery Part II Oral Examination between 2008 and 2017 with a self-designated sub-specialty of spine surgery were retrospectively reviewed. Mortality, readmission/reoperation data, and complications as reported by candidates were tracked over time. Bivariate testing and multivariable Poisson analyses, respectively, were used to assess complication rates and time-related trends. RESULTS A total of 37,539 cases were submitted between 2008 and 2017. Four hundred sixty-one cases (1.2%) were for deformity; of these, 60 cases included pelvic fixation (13% of deformity cases). For all deformity cases, we noted medical, surgical, and overall complication rates to be 17%, 22.3%, and 31.5%. Multivariable analyses demonstrated no difference in surgical/overall complication rates between spinopelvic and nonspinopelvic instrumented groups, but showed a consistently low number of cases using spinopelvic fixation over time. CONCLUSIONS Newly practicing spinal surgeons consistently performed low numbers of deformity cases with relatively high complication rates which remained stable over time.

Objective 1) To describe a simplified multidisciplinary grading system for the most clinically relevant lumbar spine degenerative changes. 2) To measure the inter-reader variability among non-radiologist spine experts in their use of the classification system for interpretation of a consecutive series of lumbar spine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examinations. Methods ATS multidisciplinary and collaborative standardized grading of spinal stenosis, foraminal stenosis, lateral recess stenosis, and facet arthropathy was developed. Our institution’s picture archiving and communication system was searched for 50 consecutive patients who underwent non-contrast MRI of the lumbar spine for chronic back pain, radiculopathy, or symptoms of spinal stenosis. Three fellowship-trained spine subspecialists from neurosurgery, orthopedic surgery, and physiatry interpreted the 50 exams using the classification at the L4–L5 and L5–S1 levels. Inter-reader agreement was assessed with Cohen’s kappa coefficient. Results For spinal stenosis, the readers demonstrated substantial agreement (κ = 0.702). For foraminal stenosis and facet arthropathy, the three readers demonstrated moderate agreement (κ = 0.544, and 0.557, respectively). For lateral recess stenosis, there was fair agreement (κ = 0.323). Conclusions A simplified universal grading system of lumbar spine MRI degenerative findings is newly described. Use of this multidisciplinary grading system in the assessment of clinically relevant degenerative changes revealed moderate to substantial agreement among non-radiologist spine physicians. This standardized grading system could serve as a foundation for interdisciplinary communication.

BACKGROUND Surgical management of spine deformity is associated with significant morbidity. Recent literature has inconsistently demonstrated better outcomes after utilizing 2 attending surgeons for spine deformity. OBJECTIVE To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis on studies reporting outcomes following single- vs dual-attending surgeons for spine deformity. METHODS MEDLINE, Embase, Web of science, and Cochrane databases were last searched on July 16, 2020. A total of 1013 records were identified excluding duplicates. After screening, 10 studies (4 cohort, 6 case series) were included in the meta-analysis. Random-effect models were used to pool the effect estimates by study design. When feasible, further subgroup analysis by deformity type was conducted. RESULTS A total of 953 patients were analyzed. Pooled results from propensity score-matched cohort studies revealed that the single-surgeon approach was unfavorably associated with a nonstatistically significant higher blood loss (mean difference = 421.0 mL; 95% CI: -28.2, 870.2), a statistically significant higher operative time (mean difference = 94.3 min; 95% CI: 54.9, 133), length of stay (mean difference = 0.84 d; 95% CI: 0.46, 1.22), and an increased risk of complications (Mantel-Haenszel risk ratio = 2.93; 95% CI: 1.12, 7.66). Data from pooled case series demonstrated similar results for all outcomes. Moreover, these results did not differ significantly between deformity types (adolescent idiopathic scoliosis and adult spinal deformity). CONCLUSION Dual-attending surgeon approach appeared to be associated with reduced operative time, shorter hospital stays, and reduced risk of complications. These findings may potentially improve outcomes in surgical treatment of spine deformity.

Author(s): Mallow, G Michael; Siyaji, Zakariah K; Galbusera, Fabio; Espinoza-Orias, Alejandro A; Giers, Morgan; Lundberg, Hannah; Ames, Christopher; Karppinen, Jaro; Louie, Philip K; Phillips, Frank M; Pourzal, Robin; Schwab, Joseph; Sciubba, Daniel M; Wang, Jeffrey C; Wilke, Hans-Joachim; Williams, Frances MK; Mohiuddin, Shoeb A; Makhni, Melvin C; Shepard, Nicholas A; An, Howard S; Samartzis, Dino

Opioid abuse has rapidly developed into an epidemic across the United States. Patients are often introduced to opioids following surgical procedures-this is particularly relevant following spinal surgery. Surgeons can help reduce this opioid burden by finding alternatives to narcotic analgesia in the postoperative period. One such medication that has shown potential in this role is ketamine, which has been studied in various surgical specialties. A review was performed of current literature regarding ketamine use in the perioperative period specific to spinal surgery. This review focused on prospective randomized control trials; the primary endpoint was opioid consumption in the postoperative period, monitored through patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) use. Both pediatric and adult spinal surgery patients were included; cervical, thoracic, and lumbar procedures were also all included. 10 studies were selected for this reviewed based on inclusion criteria, published between 2004 and 2017. 7 of these studies demonstrated a significant decrease in postoperative opioid use with the integration of ketamine in the perioperative period, while 3 trials showed no significant difference in opioid consumption. There is inherent difficulty in standardizing studies of this nature-dosing protocols, medication timing, and supplemental analgesia were variable throughout the included studies. However, this review of the most up-to-date prospective studies indicate ketamine has potential to play a significant role in reducing opioid requirements following spinal surgery, and further study is warranted in this field.

To illustrate the safe placement of a 5-screw/5-rod construct across the spinopelvic junction in a complex revision case utilizing 4 S2 alar-iliac (S2AI) screws as well as an iliac screw for a kickstand rod. The S2AI screws are often used for lumbosacral fixation at the base of long spinal deformity constructs. In severe spinal deformities, additional pelvic fixation beyond the standard 2 screws may help achieve and maintain correction, and also increase the rigidity of the construct. With a thorough understanding of pelvic anatomy, multiple pelvic screws, such as bilateral dual S2AI screws, may be placed safely to achieve stability and accommodate additional rods to perform powerful correction techniques. We illustrate the safe use of multiple rods across the lumbosacral junction in this case, by using both a hook rod construct and domino connectors – ultimately though these additional rods rely on the integrity of the pelvic fixation to provide their support. We recommend at least 3 rods across the lumbosacral junction in any adult spinal deformity case requiring pelvic fixation, and would recommend considering more than 3 rods, especially across 3-column osteotomy sites. For long spinal constructs in patients with significant adult spinal deformity, we believe the use of multiple pelvic screws to a multirod construct is a safe and effective way to provide long-term correction and clinical success.

Correction of severe spinal deformity is a significant challenge for spinal surgeons. Although halo-gravity traction (HGT) has been shown to be well-tolerated and safe, we report here a case of neurologic decline during treatment. A 24-year-old male presents with severe thoracic kyphoscoliosis with > 180° of 3-dimensional deformity. Magnetic resonance imaging showed his thoracic spinal cord draped across his T7-9 apex. His neurologic exam showed lower extremity myelopathy. During week 7 at a goal traction weight of 18.1 kg, his distal lower extremity exam declined from 4+/5 to 2/5. His traction weight was lowered to 11.3 kg. He subsequently sustained a ground-level fall and became paraparetic with a motor exam of 1-2/5. He subsequently underwent a T1-L4 posterior spinal instrumentation and fusion with a T7-9 vertebral column resection. Postoperatively, he was noted to have a complete return to his baseline neurologic exam. At his 4-month postoperative visit, he was now full strength in his lower extremities with complete resolution of his myelopathy. We present here a case of neurologic decline in a patient with severe kyphoscoliosis who underwent HGT and discuss the management decisions associated with this challenging scenario.

OBJECTIVEThe objective of this study was to describe and evaluate a new surgical procedure for the correction of coronal imbalance (CI) in adult spinal deformity patients, called the “kickstand rod” technique.METHODSThe authors analyzed the records of 24 consecutive patients with pediatric and adult spinal deformity and CI treated between July 2015 and October 2017 with a long-segment fusion and a kickstand rod. For the kickstand rod technique, an iliac screw was placed on the ipsilateral side of the trunk shift and connected proximally through a side-by-side domino link to the thoracolumbar junction; this rod was distracted to promote coronal plane balancing. Distraction occurred with the rod on the contralateral side locked in order to preserve sagittal correction. Radiographic and clinical analyses were conducted to evaluate the outcomes and possible complications of the kickstand rod technique.RESULTSThe mean age of the patients was 55 years (range 14–73 years). Eighteen of the 24 patients were female. CI preoperatively was a mean of 63 mm, and the mean measurement at the final follow-up (mean duration 1.4 years) was 47 mm. There were no neurological, vascular, or implant-related complications in any of the patients. One patient developed wound dehiscence that was successfully treated without implant removal, and one developed proximal junctional kyphosis requiring extension of the construct proximally. One patient also returned to the operating room for excision of a spinous process. There were no complaints about screw prominence, kickstand construct failure, or significant worsening of CI after surgery.CONCLUSIONSThe kickstand rod technique is safe and effective for the correction of CI in spinal deformity patients. This technique was found to provide marked coronal correction and additional strength to the overall construct without significant adverse consequences.

Delphi expert panel consensus.To obtain expert consensus on best practices for appropriate telemedicine utilization in spine surgery.Several studies have shown high patient satisfaction associated with telemedicine during the COVID-19 peak pandemic period as well as after easing of restrictions. As this technology will most likely continue to be employed, there is a need to define appropriate utilization.An expert panel consisting of 27 spine surgeons from various countries was assembled in February 2021. A two-round consensus-based Delphi method was used to generate consensus statements on various aspects of telemedicine (separated as video visits or audio visits) including themes, such as patient location and impact of patient diagnosis, on assessment of new patients. Topics with ≥75% agreement were categorized as having achieved a consensus.The expert panel reviewed a total of 59 statements. Of these, 32 achieved consensus. The panel had consensus that video visits could be utilized regardless of patient location and that video visits are appropriate for evaluating as well as indicating for surgery multiple common spine pathologies, such as lumbar stenosis, lumbar radiculopathy, and cervical radiculopathy. Finally, the panel had consensus that video visits could be appropriate for a variety of visit types including early, midterm, longer term postoperative follow-up, follow-up for imaging review, and follow-up after an intervention (i.e., physical therapy, injection).Although telemedicine was initially introduced out of necessity, this technology most likely will remain due to evidence of high patient satisfaction and significant cost savings. This study was able to provide a framework for appropriate telemedicine utilization in spine surgery from a panel of experts. However, several questions remain for future research, such as whether or not an in-person consultation is necessary prior to surgery and which physical exam maneuvers are appropriate for telemedicine.Level of Evidence: 4.

Survey-based study.We performed a mixed methods study involving patients using telemedicine for spine care. We sought to understand factors influencing the utilization and evaluation of this modality.Telemedicine has been integrated into routine spine care; its long-term viability will depend not only on optimizing its safety, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness, but also on understanding patient valuation of its benefits and limitations.We used a clinical registry to identify spine patients seen virtually by providers at our tertiary academic medical center between March and September of 2020. We distributed an online survey that queried patients' experiences with telemedicine. We performed statistical analyses of Likert-scale questions and a thematic analysis of free-form responses. Sociodemographic data were abstracted and analyzed.Overall, we evaluated 139 patient surveys. High levels of patient-rated care and patient-rated experience were observed for both in-person and telemedicine visits; however, in-person visits were rated significantly higher in both respects (9.3/10 vs. 8.7/10 for patient-rated care, P 0.001; 9.0/10 vs. 8.4/10 for patient-rated experience, P = 0.006). A preference for in-person first-time visits was observed which was not maintained for follow up appointments. Both patient and clinical factors influenced perceptions of telemedicine. Thematic analysis of free-form responses provided by 113 patients (81%) generated favorable, unfavorable, and reflective themes, each further contextualized by subthemes. Responders were not significantly different from nonresponders across sociodemographic characteristics.Our quantitative and qualitative findings yield insight into the patient experience of telemedicine in spine care. A preference for in-person visits was notable, particularly for new patient evaluations. This preference was not maintained for follow-up care. Patients acknowledged the benefits of telemedicine and reflected on its effective integration with in-person care. These results may guide best practices to improve access and patient satisfaction in the future.Level of Evidence: 4.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT Emerging literature has identified the importance of pretreatment health and functional status as influential in the prognostication of survival. A comprehensive, accessible, predictive model for survival following cervical spine fracture has yet to be developed. PURPOSE To develop an accessible and intuitive predictive model for survival in individuals aged 50 and older treated for cervical spine fractures. STUDY DESIGN Retrospective review of records from two tertiary care centers (2009–2016). PATIENT SAMPLE Patients age 50 and older who received operative or nonoperative management for cervical fractures. OUTCOME MEASURES One-year mortality was the primary outcome with 3-month and 2-year mortality considered secondarily. METHODS Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors independently associated with mortality. The magnitude and precision of the relationship with 1-year mortality for statistically significant variables determined weighting in the scoring system subsequently developed. Score performance was tested through multivariable regression and bootstrap simulation. In a sensitivity test, the performance of the score developed for 1-year mortality was assessed using figures for the 3-month and 2-year time-points. RESULTS We included 1,758 patients. Mortality rates were 12% at 3 months, 17% at 1 year, and 21% at 2 years. Following multivariable testing age, injury severity score and Glasgow coma scale demonstrated the strongest predictive values for a base score, followed by serum albumin and ambulatory status. The resultant composite score ranged from 0 (base score≤4, albumin≤3.5 g/dL, and dependent/nonambulator at presentation) to a maximum of 4 (base score≥5, albumin>3.5 g/dL, and independent ambulator at presentation). Following multivariable analysis, when compared to patients with a score of 4, significantly increased odds of 1-year mortality were appreciated for those with scores of 3 (odds ratio [OR] 7.35; 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.77, 14.32), 2 (OR 8.43; 95% CI 4.66, 15.25), 1 (OR 17.47; 95% CI 9.81, 31.11), and 0 (OR 26.58; 95% CI 13.87, 50.92). Score performance was unchanged in bootstrap testing and sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS We have developed a useful prognostic utility capable of informing survival in individuals age 50 and older, following cervical spine fractures. The score can be applied to adjust patient expectations, anticipate outcomes, and as an adjunct to decision-making in the postinjury period.

Although telemedicine visits were essential and adopted by providers and patients alike, few studies have been conducted evaluating orthopedic patient perception of the care delivered during these visits. To our knowledge, no study has evaluated specific factors that affected patient satisfaction with telemedicine and the receptiveness to continue virtual visits post COVID-19 in total joint arthroplasty (TJA) patients. Thus, the purposes of our study are to determine the following: (1) patient satisfaction with using TJA telemedicine services, (2) whether patient characteristics might be associated with satisfaction, and (3) whether virtual clinic visits may be used post-COVID-19.A prospective, cross-sectional survey study was completed by 126 TJA patients who participated in telemedicine visits with TJA surgeons from May 1, 2020 to August 31, 2020. The survey consisted of questions regarding demographics, satisfaction, and telemedicine experiences.One hundred one (80.2%) patients were satisfied with their telemedicine visit, with patients80 years old (P = .008) and those with a longer commute time (P = .01) being more satisfied P = .01. There was a significant preference for in-person visits when meeting arthroplasty surgeons for the first time (P.001), but patients were equally amenable to follow-up telemedicine visits once there was an established relationship with the surgeon.Younger patients, patients with longer commute distances, and patients who had established relationships with their provider expressed higher satisfaction with telemedicine arthroplasty visits. Although80% of patients were satisfied with their telemedicine visit, an established patient-provider relationship may be integral to the success of an arthroplasty telemedicine practice.

Study Design: Cross-sectional, anonymous, international survey. Objectives: The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in the rapid adoption of telemedicine in spine surgery. This study sought to determine the extent of adoption and global perspectives on telemedicine in spine surgery. Methods: All members of AO Spine International were emailed an anonymous survey covering the participant’s experiences with and perceptions of telemedicine. Descriptive statistics were used to depict responses. Responses were compared among regions. Results: 485 spine surgeons participated in the survey. Telemedicine usage rose from 39.0% of all visits. A majority of providers (60.5%) performed at least one telemedicine visit. The format of “telemedicine” varied widely by region: European (50.0%) and African (45.2%) surgeons were more likely to use phone calls, whereas North (66.7%) and South American (77.0%) surgeons more commonly used video ( P < 0.001). North American providers used telemedicine the most during COVID-19 (>60.0% of all visits). 81.9% of all providers “agreed/strongly agreed” telemedicine was easy to use. Respondents tended to “agree” that imaging review, the initial appointment, and postoperative care could be performed using telemedicine. Almost all (95.4%) surgeons preferred at least one in-person visit prior to the day of surgery. Conclusion: Our study noted significant geographical differences in the rate of telemedicine adoption and the platform of telemedicine utilized. The results suggest a significant increase in telemedicine utilization, particularly in North America. Spine surgeons found telemedicine feasible for imaging review, initial visits, and follow-up visits although the vast majority still preferred at least one in-person preoperative visit.

PurposeTo utilize a global survey to elucidate spine surgeons’ perspectives towards research and resident education within telemedicine.MethodsA cross-sectional, anonymous email survey was circulated to the members of AO Spine, an international organization consisting of spine surgeons from around the world. Questions were selected and revised using a Delphi approach. A major portion of the final survey queried participants on experiences with telemedicine in training, the utility of telemedicine for research, and the efficacy of telemedicine as a teaching tool. Responses were compared by region.ResultsA total of 485 surgeons completed the survey between May 15, 2020 and May 31, 2020. Though most work regularly with trainees (83.3%) and 81.8% agreed that telemedicine should be incorporated into clinical education, 61.7% of respondents stated that trainees are not present during telemedicine visits. With regards to the types of clinical education that telemedicine could provide, only 33.9% of respondents agreed that interpretation of physical exam maneuvers can be taught (mean score = − 0.28, SD = ± 1.13). The most frequent research tasks performed over telehealth were follow-up of imaging (28.7%) and study group meetings (26.6%). Of all survey responses provided by members, there were no regional differences (p > 0.05 for all comparisons).ConclusionsOur study of spine surgeons worldwide noted high agreement among specialists for the implantation of telemedicine in trainee curricula, underscoring the global acceptance of this medium for patient management going forward. A greater emphasis towards trainee participation as well as establishing best practices in telemedicine are essential to equip future spine specialists with the necessary skills for navigating this emerging platform.

Introduction While telemedicine usage has increased due to the COVID-19 pandemic, there remains little consensus about how spine surgeons perceive virtual care. The purpose of this study was to explore international perspectives of spine providers on the challenges and benefits of telemedicine. Methods Responses from 485 members of AO Spine were analyzed, covering provider perceptions of the challenges and benefits of telemedicine. All questions were optional, and blank responses were excluded from analysis. Results The leading challenges reported by surgeons were decreased ability to perform physical examinations (38.6%), possible increased medicolegal exposure (19.3%), and lack of reimbursement parity compared to traditional visits (15.5%). Fewer than 9.0% of respondents experienced technological issues. On average, respondents agreed that telemedicine increases access to care for rural/long-distance patients, provides societal cost savings, and increases patient convenience. Responses were mixed about whether telemedicine leads to greater patient satisfaction. North Americans experienced the most challenges, but also thought telemedicine carried the most benefits, whereas Africans reported the fewest challenges and benefits. Age did not affect responses. Conclusion Spine surgeons are supportive of the benefits of telemedicine, and only a small minority experienced technical issues. The decreased ability to perform the physical examination was the top challenge and remains a major obstacle to virtual care for spine surgeons around the world, although interestingly, 61.4% of providers did not acknowledge this to be a major challenge. Significant groundwork in optimizing remote physical examination maneuvers and achieving legal and reimbursement clarity is necessary for widespread implementation.

Adult spinal deformity may occur as a result of worsening adolescent spinal conditions, in the setting of advanced spondylosis and as a consequence of compression fractures. Clinically symptomatic spinal deformity, where pain or neurological symptoms affect daily activities and function, warrants treatment. In some cases, more extensive deformities may impact respiratory function as well as eating. Depending on the degree of curvature, initial treatment can consist of physical therapy, muscle relaxers and nonsteroidal medications, as well as injections. If non-operative treatment is not successful, surgery may be considered in select circumstances. Surgery may represent more of a first-line treatment in the event that respiratory or gastric function is compromised, or when progressive neurologic deficits occur in conjunction with spinal deformities. In adult patients with fixed deformities, surgery often includes a spinal osteotomy with instrumented fusion.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT Telemedicine was widely adopted to maintain a functioning health care system at the start of the COVID-19 global pandemic. The long-term viability of telemedicine will depend not only on its safety, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness from the physician and health system point of view, but also on patient perception of its benefits and limitations, as well as their willingness to continue using it as in-person visit restrictions are eased. PURPOSE The aims of this study were two-fold: 1. To characterize patient preference for telemedicine vs in-person evaluation and 2. To identify factors affecting telemedicine valuation through both quantitative and qualitative means. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING Survey-based study. PATIENT SAMPLE Using our institution's clinical registry and electronic health records, we identified both audiovisual and audio-only patient telemedicine encounters conducted within the Division of Spine Surgery in the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery between March 20, 2020 and September 1, 2020. OUTCOME MEASURES Survey responders were compared to nonresponders across key sociodemographic data. Categorical, Likert-scale, and free-form responses aimed at delineating and understanding specific influencers of patient use of and experience with telemedicine were analyzed. METHODS Between March 20, 2020 and September 1, 2020, patients who sought spine care via an audiovisual or audio-only telemedicine encounter were identified. Using a secure patient communication portal or telephone, patients were contacted and asked to participate in a survey-based study. Question format included categorical, Likert scale-based, and free-form response items. Bivariate analyses and Spearman correlation coefficients were calculated. For all analyses, p RESULTS Of 457 patients, 139 (30%) completed the survey; responders were not significantly different from nonresponders across sociodemographic characteristics including age, gender, race, and insurance type (p>0.05 for all comparisons). Average age of the responders was 61.8 years (Standard Error = 1.2). Most patients had more than one telemedicine experience prior to completing the survey (n = 98 [70.5%]). Average travel time saved was 107.6 minutes (Standard Deviation = 81.3), and the average rating of difficulty with telemedicine technology was 2.9 out of 10 (SD = 2.7), with 1 signifying very easy and 10 signifying very challenging. High levels of patient-rated care and experience were seen across in-person and telemedicine visits; however, in-person visits were rated significantly higher in both respects (9.3 out of 10 vs 8.7 out of 10 for patient-rated care [p CONCLUSIONS While high levels of care and highly rated patient experience can be achieved through both virtual and in-person care, in-person care was significantly better in these respects. Furthermore, patients had a strong preference for in-person first-time visits, which was not maintained for follow-up visits. These ratings and preferences were evident despite overall little difficulty with telemedicine technology and significant travel time saved. Free-form responses supported and further contextualized these findings. Thus, while telemedicine may continue to be an important component of spine care moving forward, patients are ready to see and be seen by their physicians again. FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT Preliminary evidence has suggested favorable correlation between National Institutes of Health (NIH) Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) assessments and traditional ("legacy") patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) in spine surgery. There has been a significant increase in PROMIS research with regards to spinal conditions. PURPOSE The purpose of this systematic review is to provide an assessment of PROMIS Physical Function (PF) measures in this patient population. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING Systematic review. METHODS A systematic search of the PubMed/MEDLINE and Embase databases was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to identify published articles that referenced the various PROMIS PF measures. Two authors independently reviewed selected studies. The search returned 1,060 studies, 124 of which were selected for independent review by two authors. Of these, 37 were selected for inclusion. Mixed linear models were performed to assess for differences between legacy PROMs and PROMIS measures. RESULTS The combined sample size of all included studies yielded 10,296 total patients. Overall, PROMIS Physical Function (PF) measures demonstrated strong correlations with legacy PROMs when evaluating spine patients (weighted Pearson correlation, 0.589, standard error [SE]=0.023; weighted Spearman correlation, 0.702, SE=0.028). PROMIS questionnaires had significantly fewer questions than did legacy PROMs (4.2±0.30 vs. 9.53±0.82, p=.015). In spine studies, the PROMIS PF forms were completed in significantly less time than legacy PROMs (48.1±2.9 vs. 174.7±12.6 seconds, p

Remote patient monitoring (RPM) has revolutionized the landscape of healthcare. From humble beginnings rooted in landline home telephone calls to present-day devices with near instantaneous wireless connectivity, the evolution of technology has ushered in an era of digital medicine and remote care. Presently, a vast array of healthcare data points can be automatically generated, analyzed, and forwarded to providers to supplement clinical decision-making. While RPM originated and was popularized within medicine, its role in orthopedics, and particularly within spine surgery, is evolving. We sought to provide an overview of RPM within orthopedics, with specific attention on spine care, analyzing its origins, present-day form, and prospects.We reviewed the literature to date as it pertains to RPM within healthcare at large, orthopedics, and spine care.We detail the development and clinical use of wearable technology and smart implants, examining the underlying technology and evaluating the spectrum of their present-day and potential applications.Technological advancements are not only reshaping the paradigm of musculoskeletal care but are also redefining the physician-patient relationship as well as reimagining traditional perspectives on healthcare data collection and privacy.

Amyloidosis is a disorder of misfolded proteins in human tissues, which can result in morbid cardiac and neurological disease. Historically, the utility of tissue biopsy during orthopaedic procedures to detect amyloidosis has been limited because no disease-modifying therapies were available; however, new drug therapies have recently emerged for the treatment of amyloidosis. Although these novel pharmaceuticals show promise for slowing disease progression, they are primarily effective in the early stages of amyloidosis, underscoring the importance of early diagnosis. Common orthopaedic manifestations of amyloidosis include carpal tunnel syndrome, trigger finger, spontaneous distal biceps tendon rupture, rotator cuff disease, and lumbar spinal stenosis. Carpal tunnel syndrome is frequently the earliest manifestation of amyloidosis, on average preceding a formal diagnosis of amyloidosis by over four years. By recognizing the constellation of musculoskeletal symptoms in the patient with amyloidosis, orthopaedic surgeons can play an active role in patient referral, early detection of systemic disease, and prompt initiation of disease-modifying treatment. There may be a role for selective biopsy for amyloid deposition in at-risk patients during routine orthopaedic procedures.

Study design Retrospective cohort study. Objective To evaluate complications following spine surgery using American Board of Orthopaedic Surgeons (ABOS) Part II examination data from 2008-2017. Summary of background data Recent research has demonstrated the importance of surgical experience and clinical volume in minimizing complications after spine surgery. This may be challenging for orthopaedic spine surgeons who are just starting their practice. Methods We performed a retrospective review of surgical cases submitted to the ABOS by candidates taking the Part II Spine examination between 2008-2017. Complications, including peri-operative mortality as reported by candidates to the ABOS, were tracked over time. Complications were classified as surgical or medical using a pre-defined algorithm. Multivariable Poisson regression analyses adjusting for confounders were used to assess rates of complications and mortality over time. All analyses controlled for biologic sex, age, surgical diagnosis and surgical location. Results A total of 37,539 spine surgical patients were analyzed, with an average of 3,754 cases performed each year. Following adjusted Poisson analysis, we determined that cases in 2017 had an increased likelihood of complications when compared to those treated in 2008 (IRR 1.20; 95% CI 1.09, 1.32). Similar findings were encountered for surgical complications (IRR 1.20; 95% CI 1.07, 1.34). In contrast, spine surgical cases reported to the ABOS in 2017 had a 55% lower likelihood of mortality when compared to procedures performed in 2008 (IRR 0.45; 95% CI 0.24, 0.84; p = 0.01). Conclusions Our analysis of ABOS Part II candidates demonstrates that reported complication rates may be increasing while mortality is decreasing. The etiologies behind these findings are likely multifactorial. Encouragingly, we believe that observed reductions in mortality suggest overall improvements in patient safety following spine surgery. At a minimum, our data provide benchmarks through which spine surgeons, hospitals and residency or fellowship programs can evaluate performance. Level of evidence 4.

PurposeTo utilize data from a global spine surgeon survey to elucidate (1) overall confidence in the telemedicine evaluation and (2) determinants of provider confidence.MethodsMembers of AO Spine International were sent a survey encompassing participant’s experience with, perception of, and comparison of telemedicine to in-person visits. The survey was designed through a Delphi approach, with four rounds of question review by the multi-disciplinary authors. Data were stratified by provider age, experience, telemedicine platform, trust in telemedicine, and specialty.ResultsFour hundred and eighty-five surgeons participated in the survey. The global effort included respondents from Africa (19.9%), Asia Pacific (19.7%), Europe (24.3%), North America (9.4%), and South America (26.6%). Providers felt that physical exam-based tasks (e.g., provocative testing, assessing neurologic deficits/myelopathy, etc.) were inferior to in-person exams, while communication-based aspects (e.g., history taking, imaging review, etc.) were equivalent. Participants who performed greater than 50 visits were more likely to believe telemedicine was at least equivalent to in-person visits in the ability to make an accurate diagnosis (OR 2.37, 95% C.I. 1.03–5.43). Compared to in-person encounters, video (versus phone only) visits were associated with increased confidence in the ability of telemedicine to formulate and communicate a treatment plan (OR 3.88, 95% C.I. 1.71–8.84).ConclusionSpine surgeons are confident in the ability of telemedicine to communicate with patients, but are concerned about its capacity to accurately make physical exam-based diagnoses. Future research should concentrate on standardizing the remote examination and the development of appropriate use criteria in order to increase provider confidence in telemedicine technology.

Improvements in technology and a push toward value-based health care have poised the telemedicine industry for growth; however, despite the benefits of virtual care, widespread implementation had not occurred until the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Powerful barriers have hindered the widespread adoption of telemedicine, including lack of awareness, implementation costs, inefficiencies introduced, difficulty performing physical examinations, overall lack of perceived benefit of virtual care, negative financial implications, concern for medicolegal liability, and regulatory restrictions. Some of these challenges have been addressed with temporary state and federal mandates in response to the COVID-19 pandemic; however, continued investment in systems and technology as well as refinement of regulations around telemedicine are needed to sustain widespread adoption by patients and providers.

Introduction The American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery (ABOS) Part II Oral Examination is typically taken two calendar years after fellowship completion. Despite previous studies using ABOS Part II Oral Examination data in other subspecialties, types of cases performed by spine surgeons in initial independent practice have not been well-studied. Such data may help trainees anticipate case composition observed in early practice and allow spine fellowship programs to understand emerging trends. Methods We retrospectively reviewed surgical cases submitted to the ABOS by candidates taking the Part II Oral Examination between 2008 and 2017 whose designated subspecialty was spine. A hierarchical, restrictive algorithm was used to determine procedures based on candidate-reported International Classification of Diseases 9th/10th Revision and Current Procedural Terminology codes. Adjusted multivariable Poisson regression analyses were used to assess changes in procedure incidence rates over time. Results We identified 37,539 cases, averaging 3,754 cases/yr, and an average of 49 cases per candidate per 6-month collection period. The most common procedures were lumbar diskectomy (22% of all procedures), posterolateral spinal fusion (PSF) (19%), and anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion (ACDF) (17%). Rates of ACDF and cervical disk arthroplasty significantly increased over time (incidence rate ratios of 1.41 and 23.3 times higher, respectively, at the end of the study period), whereas rates of cervical foraminotomy, lumbar diskectomy, PSF, and structural autograft use decreased (incidence rate ratios of 0.35, 0.84, 0.55, and 0.30). Rates of anterior lumbar interbody fusion/lateral lumbar interbody fusion and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion did not significantly change over the study period. Discussion Recent spine fellowship graduates are performing more cervical disk arthroplasties and ACDFs while decreasingly using structural autograft as well as performing fewer PSFs and lumbar diskectomies. Techniques such as anterior lumbar interbody fusion/lateral lumbar interbody fusions and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions have not changed significantly over the last decade. Level of evidence Level IV (retrospective case series study).

Cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) is a powerful, motion-sparing treatment option for managing cervical radiculopathy or myelopathy. While CDA can be an excellent surgery for properly indicated patients, it is also less forgiving than cervical fusion. Optimally resolving patient symptoms while maintaining range of motion relies on near perfection in the surgical technique. Different CDA options exist on the market, with some having long-term proven success and others in early stages of clinical trials. We discuss the different options available for use, as well as strategies of positioning, approach, disc space preparation, implantation, and fusion prevention that we believe can help improve performance and outcomes of CDA.

The “Kickstand-Rod” technique: new surgical procedure for correction of coronal imbalance (CI) in spinal deformity patients. Coronal plane correction is difficult to achieve and maintain. We developed the technique for CI in deformity patients. The technique is a safe and effective method for correction of CI in deformity patients.

The prevalence of patients with adult spinal deformity (ASD) has been reported as high as 68%. ASD often leads to significant pain and disability. Recent emphasis has been placed on sagittal plane balance and restoring normal sagittal alignment with regards to the three dimensional deformity of ASD. Optimal sagittal alignment has been known to increase spinal biomechanical efficiency, reduce energy expenditure by maintaining a stable posture with improved load absorption, influence better bony union, and help to decelerate adjacent segment deterioration. Increasingly positive sagittal imbalance has been shown to correlate with poor functional outcome and poor self-image along with poor psychological function. Compensatory mechanisms attempt to maintain sagittal balance through pelvic rotation, alterations in lumbar lordosis as well as knee and ankle flexion at the cost of increased energy expenditure. Restoring normal spinopelvic alignment is paramount to the treatment of complex spinal deformity with sagittal imbalance. Posterior osteotomies including posterior column osteotomies, pedicle subtraction osteotomies, and posterior vertebral column resection, as well anterior column support are well known to improve sagittal alignment. Understanding of whole spinal alignment and dynamics of spinopelvic alignment is essential to restore sagittal balance while minimizing the risk of developing sagittal decompensation after surgical intervention.

Background Context Because of the limited and confidential nature of most legal data, scarce literature is available to physicians about reasons for litigation in spine surgery. To optimally compensate patients while protecting physicians, further understanding of the medicolegal landscape is needed for high-risk procedures such as spine surgery. Based on these, surgeons can explore ways to better protect both their patients and themselves. Purpose To characterize the current medicolegal environment of spine surgery by analyzing a recent dataset of malpractice litigation. Study Design A retrospective study. Patient Sample All malpractice cases involving spine surgery available to public query between the years of 2010 and 2014. Outcome Measures Case outcome for spine surgery malpractice cases between the years of 2010 and 2014. Methods WestlawNext was used to analyze spine surgery malpractice cases at the state and federal level between the years 2010 and 2014. WestlawNext is a subscription-based, legal search engine that contains publicly available federal and state court records. All monetary values were inflation adjusted for 2016. One hundred three malpractice cases were categorized by case descriptors and outcome measures. Claims were categorized as either intraoperative complaints or preoperative complaints. Results Rulings in favor of the defendant (surgeon) were noted in 75% (77 of 103) of the cases. Lack of informed consent was cited in 34% of cases. For the 26 cases won by the plaintiff, the average amount in settlement was $2,384,775 versus $3,945,456 in cases brought before a jury. Cases involving consent averaged a compensation of $2,029,884, whereas cases involving only intraoperative complaints averaged a compensation of $3,667,530. A significant correlation was seen between increased compensation for plaintiffs and cases involving orthopedic surgeons (p=.020) or nerve injury (p=.005). Wrong-level surgery may be associated with lower plaintiff compensation (p=.055). The length of cases resulting in defense verdicts averaged 5.51 years, which was significantly longer than the 4.34 years average length of settlements or verdicts in favor of plaintiffs (p=.016). Conclusions Spine surgeons successfully defended themselves in 75% of lawsuits, although the cases won by physicians lingered significantly longer than those settled. Better understanding of these cases may help surgeons to minimize litigation. More than one third of cases involved a claim of insufficient informed consent. Surgeons can protect themselves and optimize care of patients through clear and documented patient communication, education, and intraoperative vigilance to avoid preventable complications.

Introduction Several studies have evaluated the efficacy of home use of chlorhexidine before surgery to reduce bacterial colonization. However, these studies have provided conflicting evidence about the potential efficacy of this strategy in decreasing bacterial loads and infection rates across surgical populations, and no prior study has analyzed the benefit of this intervention before spine surgery. We prospectively analyzed the effectiveness of chlorhexidine gluconate wipes for decreasing bacterial counts on the posterior neck. Methods Sixteen healthy adults participated in this prospective study. The right side of each participant's neck was wiped twice (the night before and the morning of the experiment) with chlorhexidine gluconate wipes. The left side was used as the control region. Bacterial swabs were obtained as a baseline upon enrollment in the study, then upon arrival at the hospital, and, finally, after both sides of the neck had received standard preoperative scrubbing. Results All patients had positive baseline bacterial growth (median >1,000 colonies/mL). When chlorhexidine gluconate wipes were used, decreased bacterial counts were noted before the preoperative scrub, but this finding was not statistically significant (P = 0.059). All patients had zero bacteria identified on either side of their neck after completion of the preoperative scrub. Conclusion At-home use of chlorhexidine gluconate wipes did not decrease the topical bacterial burden. Therefore, using chlorhexidine gluconate wipes at home before surgery may offer no added benefit.

Globally, the burden of musculoskeletal conditions continues to rise, disproportionately affecting low and middle-income countries (LMICs). The ability to meet these orthopaedic surgical care demands remains a challenge. To help address these issues, many orthopaedic surgeons seek opportunities to provide humanitarian assistance to the populations in need. While many global orthopaedic initiatives are well-intentioned and can offer short-term benefits to the local communities, it is essential to emphasize training and the integration of local surgeon-leaders. The commitment to developing educational and investigative capacity, as well as fostering sustainable, mutually beneficial partnerships in low-resource settings, is critical. To this end, global health organizations, such as the Consortium of Orthopaedic Academic Traumatologists (COACT), work to promote and ensure the lasting sustainability of musculoskeletal trauma care worldwide. This article describes global orthopaedic efforts that can effectively address musculoskeletal care through an examination of 5 domains: clinical care, clinical research, surgical education, disaster response, and advocacy.

Home Hospital (HH) is a clinical service involving the delivery of acute inpatient care in the home setting. Acute care services provided via HH include continuous telemonitoring, intravenous fluids and medications, nursing care, point-of-care imaging and laboratory tests, and in-person and virtual clinician visits. Despite offering an inpatient level of care, HH has lower fixed costs and less overhead than conventional hospital settings and offers rapid scalability. Originally implemented for acute medical conditions, HH has proven to be a safe and value-based care-delivery model for a variety of medical conditions, ranging from heart failure to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbations. For surgical conditions, HH represents an opportunity to reduce adverse hospital-acquired conditions, improve patient and caregiver satisfaction, and decrease cost. The patient profile of orthopaedic surgery inpatients matches that of patients who are most likely to benefit from HH-namely, those who are prone to functional decline, delirium, and nosocomial infections. A focus on surgeon leadership, quality and safety, and digital health with collection of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) will ensure that the potential of HH is realized as implementation and widespread rollout proceed.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT Telehealth use in spine surgery has become widespread due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The degree of global adoption remains unknown. To our knowledge, this is the first global survey to directly evaluate provider perspectives surrounding telemedicine use-cases. PURPOSE To elicit the extent of adoption of international spine telehealth. We aimed to explore telemedicine platform used, ease of use, and acceptable use-cases. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING Cross-sectional email survey, international. PATIENT SAMPLE Spine Surgeons. OUTCOME MEASURES Perspectives and practices of spine telemedicine. METHODS An anonymous, cross-sectional email survey was sent to the members of AO Spine. Survey questions covered provider experiences with and perceptions of telemedicine. Descriptive statistics were used to depict responses and responses were compared amongst regions. RESULTS A total of 485 spine providers responded to the survey. As of May 2020, telemedicine usage comprised >39.0% of all visits — up from 60.0% of all visits). There were 81.9% of all providers who “agreed/strongly agreed” telemedicine was easy to use. Respondents tended to “agree” that imaging review, the initial appointment, and postoperative care could be performed using telemedicine. Almost all (95.4%) surgeons preferred at least one in-person visit prior to the day of surgery. CONCLUSIONS Our study noted significant geographical differences in the rate of telemedicine usage and the platform of telemedicine utilized. Spine surgeons found telemedicine feasible for imaging review, initial visits, and follow-up visits although the vast majority still preferred at least one in-person preoperative visit. FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs.

This study sought to characterize the epidemiology and outcomes of spinal trauma, with or without a neurologic deficit, at a major government hospital in Phnom Penh, Cambodia. Patient demographics, American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) score on presentation, location of injury, and cause of injury from 316 patients from September 2013 through December 2016 were compiled. Outcome measures included length of hospitalization and surgical intervention. Falls were the leading cause of spinal injury (50.6%), followed by motor vehicle accidents (29.3%) and other accidents (20.1%). Patients who fell from height had higher surgery rates (P = 0.014), and men had worse ASIA scores (P = 0.0013). Patients with ASIA A-C had a mean age of 38.17 years, whereas the D-E group was on average 42.88 years. Motor vehicle accidents caused the most cervical spine injuries, whereas falls caused more thoracic and lumbar trauma (P = 0.0005). Younger, working men are experiencing more severe spinal injuries, undergoing more surgery, and staying hospitalized longer than other demographics in Phnom Penh. This study characterizes spinal trauma from falls as a public health issue in Cambodia, highlighting the importance of fall injury prevention. Protecting this cohort is an important investment for Cambodia and necessitates workplace reform and safety standard implementation.

Several different techniques have evolved to manage degenerative conditions in the lumbar spine. In situations where lumbar arthrodesis is indicated, interbody fusion can be implemented to indirectly decompress the neural elements, restore alignment, and improve fusion rates as well. The ante-psoas approach to the lumbar spine is a useful addition to the armamentarium of approaches for the spinal surgeon.