Search

Study Design: This was a single-center retrospective review., Objectives: To explore how age and gender affect PROMIS scores compared with traditional health-related quality of life (HRQL) in spine patients., Methods: Patients presenting with a primary complaint of back pain (BP) or neck pain (NP) were included. Legacy HRQLs were Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Neck Disability Index (NDI), and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). PROMIS Physical Function (PF), Pain Intensity (Int), and Pain Interference (Inf) were also administered to patients in a clinical setting. Patients were grouped by chief complaint, age (18-44, 45-64, 65+ years) and gender. Two parallel analyses were conducted to identify the effects of age and gender on patient-reported outcomes. Age groups were compared after propensity-score matching by VAS-pain and gender. Separately, genders were compared after propensity-score matching by age and VAS-pain., Results: A total of 484 BP and 128 NP patients were matched into gender cohorts (n = 201 in each BP group, 46 in each NP group). Among BP patients, female patients demonstrated worse disability by ODI (44.15 vs 38.45, P = .005); PROMIS-PF did not differ by gender. Among NP patients, neither legacy HRQLs nor PROMIS differed by gender when controlling for NP and age. BP and NP patients were matched into age cohorts (n = 135 in each BP group and n = 14 in each BP group). Among BP patients, ANOVA revealed differences between groups when controlling for BP and gender: ODI ( P < .001), PROMIS-PF ( P = .018), PROMIS-Int ( P < .001) PROMIS-Inf ( P < .001). Among NP patients, matched age groups differed significantly in terms of NDI ( P = .032) and PROMIS-PF ( P = .022) but not PROMIS-Int or PROMIS-Inf., Conclusions: Age and gender confound traditional HRQLs as well as PROMIS domains. However, PROMIS offers age and gender-specific scores, which traditional HRQLs lack.

Objective: Cervical deformity (CD) patients have severe disability and poor health status. However, little is known about how patients with rigid CD compare with those with flexible CD. The main objectives of this study were to 1) assess whether patients with rigid CD have worse baseline alignment and therefore require more aggressive surgical corrections and 2) determine whether patients with rigid CD have similar postoperative outcomes as those with flexible CD., Methods: This is a retrospective review of a prospective, multicenter CD database. Rigid CD was defined as cervical lordosis (CL) change < 10° between flexion and extension radiographs, and flexible CD was defined as a CL change ≥ 10°. Patients with rigid CD were compared with those with flexible CD in terms of cervical alignment and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) at baseline and at multiple postoperative time points. The patients were also compared in terms of surgical and intraoperative factors such as operative time, blood loss, and number of levels fused., Results: A total of 127 patients met inclusion criteria (32 with rigid and 95 with flexible CD, 63.4% of whom were females; mean age 60.8 years; mean BMI 27.4); 47.2% of cases were revisions. Rigid CD was associated with worse preoperative alignment in terms of T1 slope minus CL, T1 slope, C2-7 sagittal vertical axis (cSVA), and C2 slope (C2S; all p < 0.05). Postoperatively, patients with rigid CD had an increased mean C2S (29.1° vs 22.2°) at 3 months and increased cSVA (47.1 mm vs 37.5 mm) at 1 year (p < 0.05) compared with those with flexible CD. Patients with rigid CD had more posterior levels fused (9.5 vs 6.3), fewer anterior levels fused (1 vs 2.0), greater blood loss (1036.7 mL vs 698.5 mL), more 3-column osteotomies (40.6% vs 12.6%), greater total osteotomy grade (6.5 vs 4.5), and mean osteotomy grade per level (3.3 vs 2.1) (p < 0.05 for all). There were no significant differences in baseline HRQOL scores, the rate of distal junctional kyphosis, or major/minor complications between patients with rigid and flexible CD. Both rigid and flexible CD patients reported significant improvements from baseline to 1 year according to the numeric rating scale for the neck (-2.4 and -2.7, respectively), Neck Disability Index (-8.4 and -13.3, respectively), modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association score (0.1 and 0.6), and EQ-5D (0.01 and 0.05) (p < 0.05). However, HRQOL changes from baseline to 1 year did not differ between rigid and flexible CD patients., Conclusions: Patients with rigid CD have worse baseline cervical malalignment compared with those with flexible CD but do not significantly differ in terms of baseline disability. Rigid CD was associated with more invasive surgery and more aggressive corrections, resulting in increased operative time and blood loss. Despite more extensive surgeries, rigid CD patients had equivalent improvements in HRQOL compared with flexible CD patients. This study quantifies the importance of analyzing flexion-extension images, creating a prognostic tool for surgeons planning CD correction, and counseling patients who are considering CD surgery.

Hospital-acquired conditions (HACs) have been the focus of recent initiatives by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services in an effort to improve patient safety and outcomes. Spine surgery can be complex and may carry significant comorbidity burden, including so called "never events." The objective was to determine the rates of common HACs that occur within 30-days post-operatively for elective spine surgeries and compare them to other common surgical procedures. Patients: >18 y/o undergoing elective spine surgery were identified in the American College of Surgeons' NSQIP database from 2005 to 2013. Patients were stratified by whether they experienced >1 HAC, then compared to those undergoing other procedures including bariatric surgery, THA and TKA. Of the 90,551 spine surgery patients, 3021 (3.3%) developed at least one HAC. SSI was the most common (1.4%), followed by UTI (1.3%), and VTE (0.8%). Rates of HACs in spine surgery were significantly higher than other elective procedures including bariatric surgery (2.8%) and THA (2.8%) (both p < 0.001). Spine surgery and TKA patients had similar rates of HACs(3.3% vs 3.4%, p = 0.287), though spine patients experienced higher rates of SSI (1.4%vs0.8%, p < 0.001) and UTI (1.3%vs1.1%, p < 0.001) but lower rates of VTE (0.8%vs1.6%, p < 0.001). Spine surgery patients had lower rates of HACs overall (3.3%vs5.9%) when compared to cardiothoracic surgery patients (p < 0.001). When compared to other surgery types, spine procedures were associated with higher HACs than bariatric surgery patients and knee and hip arthroplasties overall but lower HAC rates than patients undergoing cardiothoracic surgery., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Study Design: Retrospective review of single institution., Objective: To assess the relationship between Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores in thoracolumbar patients., Methods: Included: Patients ≥18 years with a thoracolumbar spine condition (spinal stenosis, disc herniation, low back pain, disc degeneration, spondylolysis). Bivariate correlations assessed the linear relationships between ODI and PROMIS (Physical Function, Pain Intensity, and Pain Interference). Correlation cutoffs assessed patients with high and low correlation between ODI and PROMIS. Linear regression predicted the relationship of ODI to PROMIS., Results: A total of 206 patients (age 53.7 ± 16.6 years, 49.5% female) were included. ODI correlated with PROMIS Physical Function ( r = -0.763, P < .001), Pain Interference ( r = 0.800, P < .001), and Pain Intensity ( r = 0.706, P < .001). ODI strongly predicted PROMIS for Physical Function ( R 2 = 0.58, P < .001), Pain Intensity ( R 2 = 0.50, P < .001), and Pain Interference ( R 2 = 0.64, P < .001); however, there is variability in PROMIS that ODI cannot account for. ODI questions about sitting and sleeping were weakly correlated across the 3 PROMIS domains. Linear regression showed overall ODI score as accounting for 58.3% ( R 2 = 0.583) of the variance in PROMIS Physical Function, 63.9% ( R 2 = 0.639) of the variance in Pain Interference score, and 49.9% ( R 2 = 0.499) of the variance in Pain Intensity score., Conclusions: There is a large amount of variability with PROMIS that cannot be accounted for with ODI. ODI questions regarding walking, social life, and lifting ability correlate strongly with PROMIS while sitting, standing, and sleeping do not. These results reinforce the utility of PROMIS as a valid assessment for low back disability, while indicating the need for further evaluation of the factors responsible for variation between PROMIS and ODI., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Peter G. Passias consults for Medicrea and SpineWave; is on the Scientific Advisory Board of Allosource; receives teaching/speaking from Zimmer Biomet and Globus; receives grant from CSRS; does a research study for Aesculap., (© The Author(s) 2019.)

Background: Changes in spinopelvic and lower extremity alignment between standing and relaxed sitting have important clinical implications with regard to stability of total hip arthroplasty. This study aimed to analyze the effect of body mass index (BMI) on lumbopelvic alignment and motion at the hip joint., Methods: A retrospective review of patients who underwent full-body stereoradiographs in standing and relaxed sitting for total hip arthroplasty planning was conducted. Spinopelvic parameters measured included spinopelvic tilt (SPT), pelvic incidence (PI), lumbar lordosis (LL), PI minus LL (PI-LL), proximal femoral shaft angle (PFSA), and standing-to-sitting hip range of motion. Propensity score matching controlled for age, gender, PI, and hip ostoarthritis grade. Patients were stratified into normal (NORMAL; BMI, 18.5-24.9), overweight (OW; 25.0-29.9), and obese (OB; 30.0-34.9) groups. Alignment parameters were compared using one-way analysis of variance., Results: There were 84 patients in each group after propensity score matching. Standing alignment between BMI groups was similar for all parameters ( P > .05) except for PFSA ( P < .001). Significant differences were noted for sitting alignment between patients who are NORMAL, OW, and OB in: SPT ( P  = .007), PI-LL ( P  = .018), and LL ( P  = .029). PFSA between groups was not significantly different ( P > .05). Significant differences were found for sitting-to-standing alignment across groups in PFSA change ( P  < .001), SPT change ( P  = .006), PI-LL change ( P  = .005), LL change ( P  = .037), and hip flexion ( P < .001)., Conclusions: Significant differences in sitting and standing-to-sitting change in lumbopelvic alignment based on BMI suggest obese patients recruit more posterior spinopelvic tilt when sitting to compensate for soft-tissue impingement that occurs anterior to the hip joint and limiting hip flexion., (© 2020 The Authors.)

Study Design: Single-center retrospective study., Objective: Investigate how differing degrees of pelvic incidence (PI) modulate the recruitment of pelvic tilt (PT) in response to similar amounts of sagittal malalignment as measured by T1-Pelvic Angle (TPA)., Summary of Background Data: Past research has shown that some patients do not recruit PT in response to sagittal malalignment. Given the anatomic relationship between PI and PT, we sought to determine whether differing PI is associated with variable recruitment of PT., Methods: Single-center retrospective study of 2077 patients undergoing full body radiographs and TPA>10°. Five groups of patients (Very Low, Low, Average, High, and Very High PI) were defined utilizing PI ranges on a Gaussian distribution. Linear regression (LR) evaluated correlation of TPA to PT within each PI group. Multivariate LR evaluated whether correlation between TPA and PT differed between each PI group., Results: Mean PT increased with increasing levels of PI (P < 0.05). Within the full cohort, PT correlated with TPA (r = 0.80, P < 0.001). Multivariate LR revealed significant differences between slopes and intercepts of the linear relationship between PT and TPA within the PI groups. Compared with patients with an average PI, patients with Very Low PI had 3.4° lower PT while holding TPA constant (P < 0.001). Further, patients with Very High PI displayed a PT of 1.9° higher than patients with an Average PI while holding TPA constant (P = 0.01). A similar difference of -1.8°, and 1.2° with respect to the Average PI group was observed in the Low and High PI groups, respectively (P < 0.001). Means and standard deviations of PT at varying levels of TPA were defined for PI groups., Conclusion: This is the first study which demonstrated that PI is associated with varied recruitment of PT while maintaining constant sagittal malalignment. The results reported herein are intended to allow surgeons to assess a patient's magnitude of compensatory PT for an individual patient's PI., Level of Evidence: 3.

Study Design: Retrospective cohort study., Objective: To investigate radiological differences in lumbar disc herniations (herniated nucleus pulposus [HNP]) between patients receiving microscopic lumbar discectomy (MLD) and nonoperative patients., Methods: Patients with primary treatment for an HNP at a single academic institution between November 2012 to March 2017 were divided into MLD and nonoperative treatment groups. Using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), axial HNP area; axial canal area; HNP canal compromise; HNP cephalad/caudal migration and HNP MRI signal (black, gray, or mixed) were measured. T test and chi-square analyses compared differences in the groups, binary logistic regression analysis determined odds ratios (ORs), and decision tree analysis compared the cutoff values for risk factors., Results: A total of 285 patients (78 MLD, 207 nonoperative) were included. Risk factors for MLD treatment included larger axial HNP area ( P < .01, OR = 1.01), caudal migration, and migration magnitude ( P < .05, OR = 1.90; P < .01, OR = 1.14), and gray HNP MRI signal ( P < .01, OR = 5.42). Cutoff values for risks included axial HNP area (70.52 mm 2 , OR = 2.66, P < .01), HNP canal compromise (20.0%, OR = 3.29, P < .01), and cephalad/caudal migration (6.8 mm, OR = 2.43, P < .01). MLD risk for those with gray HNP MRI signal (67.6% alone) increased when combined with axial HNP area >70.52 mm 2 (75.5%, P = .01) and HNP canal compromise >20.0% (71.1%, P = .05) cutoffs. MLD risk in patients with cephalad/caudal migration >6.8 mm (40.5% alone) increased when combined with axial HNP area and HNP canal compromise (52.4%, 50%; P < .01)., Conclusion: Patients who underwent MLD treatment had significantly different axial HNP area, frequency of caudal migration, magnitude of cephalad/caudal migration, and disc herniation MRI signal compared to patients with nonoperative treatment., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article., (© The Author(s) 2019.)

Study Design: Single institution retrospective clinical review., Objective: To investigate the relationship between levels fused and clinical outcomes in patients undergoing open and minimally invasive surgical (MIS) lumbar fusion., Summary of Background Data: Minimally invasive spinal fusion aims to reduce the morbidity associated with conventional open surgery. As multilevel arthrodesis procedures are increasingly performed using MIS techniques, it is necessary to weigh the risks and benefits of multilevel MIS lumbar fusion as a function of fusion length., Methods: Patients undergoing <4 level lumbar interbody fusion were stratified by surgical technique (MIS or open), and grouped by fusion length: 1-level, 2-levels, 3+ levels. Demographics, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), surgical factors, and perioperative complication rates were compared between technique groups at different fusion lengths using means comparison tests., Results: Included: 361 patients undergoing lumbar interbody fusion (88% transforaminal, 14% lateral; 41% MIS). Breakdown by fusion length: 63% 1-level, 22% 2-level, 15% 3+ level. Op-time did not differ between groups at 1-level (MIS: 233 min vs. Open: 227, P = 0.554), though MIS at 2-levels (332 min vs. 281) and 3+ levels (373 min vs. 323) were longer (P = 0.033 and P = 0.231, respectively). While complication rates were lower for MIS at 1-level (15% vs. 30%, P = 0.006) and 2-levels (13% vs. 27%, P = 0.147), at 3+ levels, complication rates were comparable (38% vs. 35%, P = 0.870). 3+ level MIS fusions had higher rates of ileus (13% vs. 0%, P = 0.008) and a trend of increased adverse pulmonary events (25% vs. 7%, P = 0.110). MIS was associated with less EBL at all lengths (all P < 0.01) and lower rates of anemia at 1-level (5% vs. 18%, P < 0.001) and 2-levels (7% vs. 16%, P = 0.193). At 3+ levels, however, anemia rates were similar between groups (13% vs. 15%, P = 0.877)., Conclusion: MIS lumbar interbody fusions provided diminishing clinical returns for multilevel procedures. While MIS patients had lower rates of perioperative complications for 1- and 2-level fusions, 3+ level MIS fusions had comparable complication rates to open cases, and higher rates of adverse pulmonary and ileus events., Level of Evidence: 3.

Background: Regional and segmental changes of the lumbar spine have previously been described as patients transition from standing to sitting; however, alignment changes in the cervical and thoracic spine have yet to be investigated. So, the aim of this study was to assess cervical and thoracic regional and segmental changes in patients with thoracolumbar deformity versus a nondeformed thoracolumbar spine population., Methods: This study was a retrospective cohort study of a single center's database of full-body stereoradiographic imaging and clinical data. Patients were ≥ 18 years old with nondeformed spines (nondegenerative, nondeformity spinal pathologies) or thoracolumbar deformity (ASD: PI-LL > 10°). Patients were propensity-score matched for age and maximum hip osteoarthritis grade and were stratified by Scoliosis Research Society (SRS)-Schwab classification by PI-LL, SVA, and PT. Patients with lumbar transitional anatomy or fusions were excluded. Outcome measures included changes between standing and sitting in global alignment parameters: sagittal vertical axis (SVA), pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis (PI-LL), pelivc tilt (PT), thoracic kyphosis, cervical alignment, cervical SVA, C2-C7 lordosis (CL), T1 slop minus CL (TS-CL), and segmental alignment from C2 to T12. Another analysis was performed using patients with cervical and thoracic segmental measurements., Results: A total of 338 patients were included (202 nondeformity, 136 ASD). After propensity-score matching, 162 patients were included (81 nondeformity, 81 ASD). When categorized by SRS-Schwab classification, all nondeformity patients were nonpathologically grouped for PI-LL, SVA, and PT, whereas ASD patients had mix of moderately and markedly deformed modifiers. There were significant differences in pelvic and global spinal alignment changes from standing to sitting between nondeformity and ASD patients, particularly for SVA (nondeformed: 49.5 mm versus ASD: 27.4 mm; P &thinsp ; < .001) and PI-LL (20.12° versus 13.01°, P  < .001). With application of the Schwab classification system upon the cohort, PI-LL ( P  = .040) and SVA ( P  = .007) for severely classified deformity patients had significantly less positional alignment change. In an additional analysis of patients with segmental measurements from C2 to T12, nondeformity patients showed significant mobility of T2-T3 (-0.99° to -0.54°, P  = .023), T6-T7 (-3.39° to -2.89°, P  = .032), T7-T8 (-2.68° to -2.23°, P  = .048), and T10-T11 (0.31° to 0.097°, P  = .006) segments from standing to sitting. ASD patients showed mobility of the C6-C7 (1.76° to 3.45°, P  < .001) and T11-T12 (0.98° to 0.54°, P  = 0.014) from standing to sitting. The degree of mobility between nondeformity and ASD patients was significantly different in C6-C7 (-0.18° versus 1.69°, P  = .003), T2-T3 (0.45° versus -0.27°, P  = .034), and T10-T11 (0.45° versus -0.30°, P  = .001) segments. With application of the Schwab modifier system upon the cohort, mobility was significant in the C6-C7 (nondeformed: 0.18° versus moderately deformed: 2.12° versus markedly deformed: 0.92°, P  = .039), T2-T3 (0.45° versus -0.08° versus -0.63°, P  = .020), T6-T7 (0.48° versus 0.36° versus -1.85°, P  = .007), and T10-T11 (0.45° versus -0.21° versus -0.23°, P  = .009) segments., Conclusions: Nondeformity patients and ASD patients have significant differences in mobility of global spinopelvic parameters as well as segmental regions in the cervical and thoracic spine between sitting and standing. This study aids in our understanding of flexibility and compensatory mechanisms in deformity patients, as well as the possible impact on unfused segments when considering deformity corrective surgery., Competing Interests: Disclosures and COI: No funding was received in relation to the creation of this work. Each institution obtained approval from their local Institutional Review Board to enroll patients in the prospective database and informed consent was obtained from each patient. Peter G. Passias, MD, reports personal consulting fees for Spinewave, Zimmer Biomet, and Medicrea outside the submitted work. Virginie Lafage, PhD, reports Depuy Synthes paid lectures, Nuvasive paid lectures, K2M paid lectures, Medtronic paid lectures, and Nemaris board member and shareholder.

Study Design: Retrospective cohort study., Objective: To evaluate the ability of patient reported outcome measurement information system (PROMIS) assessments to capture disability related to cervical sagittal alignment and secondarily to compare these findings to legacy outcome measures., Summary of Background Data: PROMIS is a validated patient-reported outcome metric that is increasing in popularity due to its speed of administration relative to legacy metrics. The ability of PROMIS to capture disability from sagittal alignment and baseline health status in patients with neck pain has not been investigated., Methods: Patients presenting with a chief complaint of neck pain from December 2016 to July 2017 were included. Demographics and comorbidities were retrospectively collected. All patients prospectively completed the neck disability index (NDI), EQ-5D, visual analog scale (VAS) neck, VAS arm, PROMIS physical function, PROMIS pain intensity, and PROMIS pain interference metrics. Cervical sagittal alignment parameters were measured on standing X-rays. The correlations between outcome measures, health status indexes, psychiatric diagnoses, and sagittal alignment were analyzed., Results: Two hundred twenty-six patients were included. The sample was 58.4% female with a mean age of 55.1 years. In patients with neck pain, PROMIS physical function correlated strongly with the NDI (r = -0.763, P < 0.01), EQ-5D (r = 0.616, P < 0.01), VAS neck pain (-0.466, P < 0.01), and VAS arm pain (r = -0.388, P < 0.01). One hundred seventy-seven patients (69.96%) were included in the radiographic analysis. 20.3% of the radiographic cohort had cervical deformity and in this group, less cervical lordosis correlated with PROMIS pain intensity and EQ-5D but not NDI. In patients without cervical deformity, no outcome metric was found to correlate significantly with cervical alignment parameters., Conclusion: PROMIS domains correlated strongly with legacy outcome metrics. For the whole cohort, sagittal alignment was not correlated with outcomes. In patients with sagittal cervical deformity, worsening alignment correlated with PROMIS pain intensity and EQ-5D but not NDI., Level of Evidence: 3.

Background Context: Lumbar disc herniation and retrolisthesis have been shown to be significant degenerative changes that can be associated with back pain. Current literature has shown evidence that retrolisthesis is associated with similar baseline function in patients with L5-S1 disc herniation, but worse postoperative outcomes 2 years after lumbar discectomy. However, literature comparing long-term postoperative outcomes at 8-year follow-up in patients with L5-S1 disc herniation with retrolisthesis is lacking., Purpose: The purpose of the present study is to compare long-term postoperative outcomes at 8-year follow-up in patients with retrolisthesis and L5-S1 disc herniations to patients with L5-S1 disc herniations without retrolisthesis., Study Design: Retrospective review of prospectively collected data from the Spine Patients Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT) database., Patient Sample: Sixty-five patients who underwent lumbar discectomy for L5-S1 disc herniations with 8-year follow-up from the SPORT., Outcome Measures: Short Form (SF)-36 bodily pain scale, SF-36 physical function scale, Oswestry Disability Index, Sciatica Bothersomeness Index, and reoperation rate., Methods: Baseline surgical parameters, length of stay, complication rates, reoperation rates, and outcome measures were recorded in the SPORT database. Follow-up data were collected at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, 4 years, 5 years, 6 years, 7 years, and 8 years. Retrolisthesis was defined as posterior subluxation ≥8%. Patients with and without retrolisthesis were compared using a mixed-effects model of longitudinal regression. Outcomes were calculated as time-weighted averages over 8 years. Reoperation rates were compared using the log-rank test based on time to first reoperation., Results: One hundred-twenty five patients met inclusion criteria for the present study, including 29 patients with retrolisthesis (23.3%) and 96 patients who did not have retrolisthesis (76.7%). The greatest difference in clinical outcome measures was found at 2 years postoperatively. This was the only point at which both the Short Form-36 Bodily Pain scale (SF-36 BP) and PF showed significant differences between the retrolisthesis and nonretrolisthesis group. At 3 years, SF-36 BP was significantly lower in patients with retrolisthesis (39.9 vs. 52, p=.046). At 8-year follow-up, the presence of retrolisthesis in patients undergoing L5-S1 discectomy was not associated with worse outcome measure scores based on the area under the curve analysis for any metric investigated (SF-36 BP 41.4 vs. 47.1, p=.18; SF-36 Physical Function scale 38.9 vs. 45.4, p=.12; Oswestry Disability Index -39.4 vs. -34.8, p=.23; -11.6 vs. -10.4, p=.25) or a difference in reoperation rate (retrolisthesis group 10%, nonretrolisthesis group 17%, p=.41)., Conclusions: While retrolisthesis can contribute to low back pain and dysfunction in patients undergoing lumbar discectomy for L5-S1 herniated nucleus pulposus in early follow-up, no significant difference was found in postoperative outcomes after 3 years. Additionally, retrolisthesis was not found to be associated with different reoperation rates at 8 years postoperatively., (Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

This study sought to assess comorbidity profiles unique to early-onset-scoliosis (EOS) patients by employing cluster analytics and to determine the influence of isolated comorbidity clusters on perioperative complications, morbidity and mortality using a high powered administrative database. The KID database was queried for ICD-9 codes pertaining to congenital and idiopathic scoliosis from 2003, 2006, 2009, 2012. Patients <10 y/o (EOS group) were included. Demographics, incidence and comorbidity profiles were assessed. Comorbidity profiles were stratified by body systems (neurological, musculoskeletal, pulmonary, cardiovascular, renal). K-means cluster and descriptive analyses elucidated incidence and comorbidity relationships between frequently co-occurring comorbidities. Binary logistic regression models determined predictors of perioperative complication development, mortality, and extended length-of-stay (≥75th percentile). 25,747 patients were included (Age: 4.34, Female: 52.1%, CCI: 0.64). Incidence was 8.9 per 100,000 annual discharges. 55.2% presented with pulmonary comorbidities, 48.7% musculoskeletal, 43.8% neurological, 18.6% cardiovascular, and 11.9% renal; 38% had concurrent neurological and pulmonary. Top inter-bodysystem clusters: Pulmonary disease (17.2%) with epilepsy (17.8%), pulmonary failure (12.2%), restrictive lung disease (10.5%), or microcephaly and quadriplegia (2.1%). Musculoskeletal comorbidities (48.7%) with renal and cardiovascular comorbidities (8.2%, OR: 7.9 [6.6-9.4], p < 0.001). Top intra-bodysystem clusters: Epilepsy (11.7%) with quadriplegia (25.8%) or microcephaly (20.5%). Regression analysis determined neurological and pulmonary clusters to have a higher odds of perioperative complication development (OR: 1.28 [1.19-1.37], p < 0.001) and mortality (OR: 2.05 [1.65-2.54], p < 0.001). Musculoskeletal with cardiovascular and renal anomalies had higher odds of mortality (OR: 1.72 [1.28-2.29], p < 0.001) and extLOS (OR: 2.83 [2.48-3.22], p < 0.001). EOS patients with musculoskeletal conditions were 7.9x more likely to have concurrent cardiovascular and renal anomalies. Clustered neurologic and pulmonary anomalies increased mortality risk by as much as 105%. These relationships may benefit pre-operative risk assessment for concurrent anomalies and adverse outcomes. Level of Evidence: III - Retrospective Prognostic Study., (Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Study Design: A retrospective analysis of a patient-reported outcomes database from a single institution from December 2016 to April 2017., Objective: To validate the association of Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) with Neck Disability Index (NDI) in patients with neck pain and examine each instruments ability to capture concomitant arm pain and concomitant back pain., Summary of Background Data: PROMIS has been increasingly utilized and its computer adapted testing methodology improves assessment of pain and disability. However, literature is lacking regarding how these instruments perform in neck pain patients with concomitant arm pain or back pain., Methods: Inclusion criteria were age >18 years and a primary complaint of neck pain. The NDI; Visual Analog Scale (VAS) back, neck, arm, and leg; and PROMIS physical function, pain intensity, and pain interference questionnaires were administered. Propensity score matching was performed to compare patients with high and low back and arm pain by controlling for neck pain. Bivariate correlations and independent samples t tests were performed to assess linear relationships and compare back and arm pain groups with PROMIS., Results: Approximately, 130 patients were included. NDI correlated strongly to PROMIS physical function (r = -0.771, P < 0.001), pain intensity (r = 0.605, P < 0.001), and pain interference (r = 0.786, P < 0.001). VAS neck and arm pain also correlated to the PROMIS pain intensity instrument (VAS neck: r = 0.642, P < 0.001; VAS arm: r = 0.376, P < 0.001).After matching for neck pain, the high and low back pain groups each included 32 patients. There were significant differences in PROMIS physical function when high and low back pain groups were compared (39.07 vs. 43.68, P = 0.031). No significant difference was found for any outcome metric for high and low arm pain groups., Conclusion: PROMIS instruments are capable of characterizing pain and disability in patients with neck pain and are sensitive to disability in regions adjacent to the neck., Level of Evidence: 3.

Objective: The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) has become increasingly popular due to computer adaptive testing methodology. This study aims to validate the association between PROMIS and legacy outcome metrics and compare PROMIS to legacy metrics in terms of ceiling and floor effects and questionnaire burden., Methods: A retrospective review of an outcomes database was performed at a single institution from December 2016 to April 2017. Inclusion criteria were age > 18 years and a chief complaint of back pain or neck pain. The PROMIS computer adaptive testing Pain Interference, Physical Function (PF), and Pain Intensity domains; Oswestry Disability Index (ODI); Neck Disability Index (NDI); and visual analog scale (VAS) back, VAS leg, VAS neck, and VAS arm were completed in random order. PROMIS was compared to legacy metrics in terms of the average number of questions needed to complete each questionnaire and the score distributions in the lower and higher bounds of scores., Results: A total of 494 patients with back pain and 130 patients with neck pain were included. For back pain, ODI showed a strong correlation with PROMIS-PF (R = -0.749, p < 0.001), Pain Intensity (R = 0.709, p < 0.001), and Pain Interference (R = 0.790, p < 0.001) domains. Additionally, the PROMIS Pain Intensity domain correlated to both VAS back and neck pain (R = 0.642, p < 0.001 for both). PROMIS-PF took significantly fewer questions to complete compared to the ODI (4.123 vs 9.906, p < 0.001). When assessing for instrument sensitivity, neither survey presented a significant ceiling and floor effect in the back pain population (ODI: 0.40% and 2.63%; PROMIS-PF: 0.60% and 1.41%). In the neck pain cohort, NDI showed a strong correlation with PROMIS-PF (R = 0.771, p < 0.001). Additionally, PROMIS Pain Intensity correlated to VAS neck (R = 0.642, p < 0.001). The mean number of questions required to complete the questionnaire was much lower for PROMIS-PF compared to NDI (4.417 vs 10, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences found in terms of ceiling and floor effects for neck complaints (NDI: 2.3% and 6.92%; PROMIS-PF: 0.00% and 5.38%) or back complaints (ODI: 0.40% and 2.63%; PROMIS-PF: 1.41% and 0.60%)., Conclusions: PROMIS correlates strongly with traditional disability measures in patients with back pain and neck pain. For both back and neck pain, the PROMIS-PF required patients to answer significantly fewer questions to achieve similar granularity. There were no significant differences in ceiling and floor effects for NDI or ODI when compared with the PROMIS-PF instrument.

Background: Bariatric surgery (BS) is an increasingly common treatment for morbid obesity that has the potential to effect bone and mineral metabolism. The effect of prior BS on spine surgery outcomes has not been well established. The aim of this study was to assess differences in complication rates following spinal surgery for patients with and without a history of BS., Methods: Retrospective analysis of the prospectively collected New York State Inpatient Database (NYSID) years 2004-2013. BS patients and morbidly obese patients (non-BS) were divided into cervical and thoracolumbar surgical groups and propensity score matched for age, gender, and invasiveness and complications compared., Results: One thousand nine hundred thirty-nine spine surgery patients with a history of BS were compared to 1625 non-BS spine surgery patients. The average time from bariatric surgery to spine surgery is 2.95 years. After propensity score matching, 740 BS patients were compared to 740 non-BS patients undergoing thoracolumbar surgery, with similar comorbidity rates. The overall complication rate for BS thoracolumbar patients was lower than non-BS (45.8% vs 58.1%, P < 0.001), with lower rates of device-related (6.1% vs 23.2%, P < 0.001), DVT (1.2% vs 2.7%, P = 0.039), and hematomas (1.5% vs 4.5%, P < 0.001). Neurologic complications were similar between BS patients and non-BS patients (2.3% vs 2.7%, P = 0.62). For patients undergoing cervical spine surgery, BS patients experienced lower rates of bowel issues, device-related, and overall complication than non-BS patients (P < 0.05)., Conclusions: Bariatric surgery patients undergoing spine surgery experience lower overall complication rates than morbidly obese patients. This study warrants further investigation into these populations to mitigate risks associated with spine surgery for bariatric patients.

The objective of this study was to analyze if the addition of CT changed the management of femoral shaft fractures caused by gunshot wounds when compared to those managed with plain radiography alone., Methods: A multiple-choice, single-answer electronic survey was created to compare utility of advanced imaging when treating femur fractures resulting from gunshot injury. A total of ten femoral shaft fracture cause by gunshot injuries were selected for an online survey to be administered to orthopeaedic traumatologists. The survey compared the use the of fixation device and surgical planning before and after the CT scan., Results: A total of 99 surveys were initiated, of which 82 were completed. For proximal shaft fractures, 37% of experts reported that a CT scan should be ordered based on the radiograph alone, prior to reviewing the CT. After reviewing the CT, 5% of experts reported that they would have performed a "major" change, and 10% reported that they would have performed a "minor" change. 4% of surveyors would have changed their decision regarding ordering a CT. For distal femoral shaft fractures, 42% of experts selected that a CT scan would have been ordered prior to reviewing the CT. After reviewing the CT, 2% would have performed a "major" change, and 8% would have performed a "minor" change in management. 5% of surveyors would have changed their decision regarding ordering a CT., Conclusion: Our study demonstrated that CT scans are relatively unlikely to cause major changes in fracture management of gunshot-induced fractures of femoral shaft., (Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of using the Orthopaedic Trauma Association (OTA/AO) classification for both bone forearm fractures in predicting compartment syndrome., Design: Retrospective cohort., Setting: Level 1 Academic Trauma Center., Patients/participants: One hundred fifty-one patients 18 years of age and older, with both bone forearm fractures diagnosed from 2001 to 2016 were categorized based on the OTA/AO classification. Patients with both bone fractures caused by gunshot wounds were excluded., Main Outcome Measurements: The endpoint for our study was whether forearm fasciotomies were performed based on the presence of compartment syndrome., Results: Of a total of 151 both bone forearm fractures, 15% underwent fasciotomy. Six of 80 (7.5%) grouped 22-A3, 8 of 44 (18%) grouped 22-B3, and 9 of 27 (33%) grouped 22-C underwent fasciotomies for compartment syndrome (P = 0.004). The relative risks of developing compartment syndrome for group 22-B3 versus 22-A3 was 2.42 (P = 0.08), 22-C versus 22-B3 was 1.83 (P = 0.15), and 22-C versus 22-A3 was 4.44 (P = 0.002)., Conclusions: There is a significant correlation between the OTA/AO classification and the need for fasciotomies, with group C fractures representing the highest risk. Clinicians can use this information to have a higher index of suspicion for compartment syndrome based on OTA/AO classification to help minimize the risk of a missed diagnosis., Level of Evidence: Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.