Zeitouni, Daniel

OBJECTIVE The optimal surgical treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) with degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) remains controversial. Posterior lumbar facet arthroplasty preserves motion after decompression and may address some of the limitations of fusion techniques. The Total Posterior Spine System (TOPS) investigational device exemption trial compared decompression with facet arthroplasty to decompression plus fusion (open with interbody). This study reports the 3-year outcomes from this trial. METHODS This randomized, controlled, multicenter trial enrolled 321 patients with LSS and grade I DS across 37 sites (2:1 randomization of arthroplasty to fusion). Eligible patients were 35–80 years old, had failed ≥ 6 months of nonsurgical treatment, and met thresholds for disability and leg pain. The primary endpoint was a composite clinical success score at 36 months, defined by four criteria: 1) no reoperation or lumbar injection, 2) no major device adverse events, 3) ≥ 15-point improvement in the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and 4) no new/progressive neurological deficit. Secondary outcomes included the ODI score, visual analog scale (VAS) scores for back and leg pain, the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ), device-related adverse events, and reoperations. RESULTS One hundred seventy-nine patients in the arthroplasty (TOPS) group and 74 in the fusion group were eligible for the 36-month analysis. The composite clinical success achievement rate was significantly higher in the arthroplasty group (76.0%) than in the fusion group (56.8%; p = 0.0038). The rate of reoperation or lumbar injection was significantly lower for the arthroplasty group (14.0%) compared to the fusion group (25.3%; p = 0.0222). Arthroplasty was associated with a significantly higher minimal clinically important difference (MCID) achievement rate for VAS back pain score compared with fusion (85.2% vs 72.2%; p = 0.041). Although there was no significant difference in ODI score, VAS leg pain score, or ZCQ component scores between groups, the arthroplasty group trended toward higher MCID achievement rates across all patient-reported outcome measures. There was no significant difference in reoperation failure rates between groups (5.8% for arthroplasty vs 9.5% for fusion; p = 0.329). CONCLUSIONS Decompression and dynamic stabilization with lumbar facet arthroplasty was associated with statistically significantly superior clinical outcomes and lower rates of secondary invasive procedures, including reoperations and injections, compared with decompression and fusion. Long-term follow-up is critical in defining the role of lumbar facet arthroplasty for the treatment of DS.

OBJECTIVE Cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) shows varying levels of improvement after surgical treatment. While some patients improve soon after surgery, others may take months to years to show any signs of improvement. The goal of this study was to evaluate postoperative improvement, patient-reported outcomes, and patient satisfaction up to 2 years after surgical treatment for CSM, which will help optimize the current treatment strategies and effectively manage patient expectations. METHODS This was a retrospective study of prospectively collected data using the Quality Outcomes Database. The primary outcomes of interest were achievement of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for the numeric rating scale for neck and arm pain, modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association, Neck Disability Index, and EQ-5D scores and postoperative satisfaction (North American Spine Society scale). Early and sustained improvement was defined as MCID achievement in at least one patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) at the 3-, 12-, and 24-month follow-ups. Transient improvement was defined as MCID achievement only at the 3-month and/or 12-month follow-up but not at the 24-month follow-up. Late improvement was defined as MCID achievement in at least one PROM only at the 24-month follow-up. RESULTS There were 630 patients included in the comparative analysis. A total of 463 (73.5%) patients achieved early and sustained improvement, 105 (16.7%) patients experienced transient improvement with subsequent decline, 25 (4.0%) patients reported late improvement, and 37 (5.9%) patients did not report any clinically meaningful improvement after surgery. Patients with an anterior approach were more likely to be in the early and sustained improvement group. African American patients (OR 2.98, 95% CI 1.14–7.76; p = 0.03) were more likely to report late improvement when compared with White patients. The overall satisfaction rate at the 24-month follow-up was 87.8%. CONCLUSIONS These findings indicate that 73.5% of patients achieve early and sustained improvement, and 87.8% of patients are satisfied with surgery 24 months postoperatively.

OBJECTIVE Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a known risk factor for postsurgical and systemic complications after lumbar spinal surgery. Smaller studies have also demonstrated diminished improvements in patient-reported outcomes (PROs), with increased reoperation and readmission rates after lumbar surgery in patients with DM. The authors aimed to examine longer-term PROs in patients with DM undergoing lumbar decompression and/or arthrodesis for degenerative pathology. METHODS The Quality Outcomes Database was queried for patients undergoing elective lumbar decompression and/or arthrodesis for degenerative pathology. Patients were grouped into DM and non-DM groups and optimally matched in a 1:1 ratio on 31 baseline variables, including the number of operated levels. Outcomes of interest were readmissions and reoperations at 30 and 90 days after surgery in addition to improvements in Oswestry Disability Index, back pain, and leg pain scores and quality-adjusted life-years at 90 days after surgery. RESULTS The matched decompression cohort comprised 7836 patients (3236 [41.3] females) with a mean age of 63.5 ± 12.6 years, and the matched arthrodesis cohort comprised 7336 patients (3907 [53.3%] females) with a mean age of 64.8 ± 10.3 years. In patients undergoing lumbar decompression, no significant differences in nonroutine discharge, length of stay (LOS), readmissions, reoperations, and PROs were observed. In patients undergoing lumbar arthrodesis, nonroutine discharge (15.7% vs 13.4%, p < 0.01), LOS (3.2 ± 2.0 vs 3.0 ± 3.5 days, p < 0.01), 30-day (6.5% vs 4.4%, p < 0.01) and 90-day (9.1% vs 7.0%, p < 0.01) readmission rates, and the 90-day reoperation rate (4.3% vs 3.2%, p = 0.01) were all significantly higher in the DM group. For DM patients undergoing lumbar arthrodesis, subgroup analyses demonstrated a significantly higher risk of poor surgical outcomes with the open approach. CONCLUSIONS Patients with and without DM undergoing lumbar spinal decompression alone have comparable readmission and reoperation rates, while those undergoing arthrodesis procedures have a higher risk of poor surgical outcomes up to 90 days after surgery. Surgeons should target optimal DM control preoperatively, particularly for patients undergoing elective lumbar arthrodesis.

OBJECTIVE The Quality Outcomes Database (QOD) was established in 2012 by the NeuroPoint Alliance, a nonprofit organization supported by the American Association of Neurological Surgeons. Currently, the QOD has launched six different modules to cover a broad spectrum of neurosurgical practice—namely lumbar spine surgery, cervical spine surgery, brain tumor, stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), functional neurosurgery for Parkinson’s disease, and cerebrovascular surgery. This investigation aims to summarize research efforts and evidence yielded through QOD research endeavors. METHODS The authors identified all publications from January 1, 2012, to February 18, 2023, that were produced by using data collected prospectively in a QOD module without a prespecified research purpose in the context of quality surveillance and improvement. Citations were compiled and presented along with comprehensive documentation of the main study objective and take-home message. RESULTS A total of 94 studies have been produced through QOD efforts during the past decade. QOD-derived literature has been predominantly dedicated to spinal surgical outcomes, with 59 and 22 studies focusing on lumbar and cervical spine surgery, respectively, and 6 studies focusing on both. More specifically, the QOD Study Group—a research collaborative between 16 high-enrolling sites—has yielded 24 studies on lumbar grade 1 spondylolisthesis and 13 studies on cervical spondylotic myelopathy, using two focused data sets with high data accuracy and long-term follow-up. The more recent neuro-oncological QOD efforts, i.e., the Tumor QOD and the SRS Quality Registry, have contributed 5 studies, providing insights into the real-world neuro-oncological practice and the role of patient-reported outcomes. CONCLUSIONS Prospective quality registries are an important resource for observational research, yielding clinical evidence to guide decision-making across neurosurgical subspecialties. Future directions of the QOD efforts include the development of research efforts within the neuro-oncological registries and the American Spine Registry—which has now replaced the inactive spinal modules of the QOD—and the focused research on high-grade lumbar spondylolisthesis and cervical radiculopathy.

OBJECTIVE Spine surgery represents an ideal target for healthcare cost reduction efforts, with outpatient surgery resulting in significant cost savings. With an increased focus on value-based healthcare delivery, lumbar decompression surgery has been increasingly performed in the outpatient setting when appropriate. The aim of this study was to compare clinical and patient-reported outcomes following outpatient and inpatient lumbar decompression surgery. METHODS The Quality Outcomes Database (QOD) was queried for patients undergoing elective one- or two-level lumbar decompression (laminectomy or laminotomy with or without discectomy) for degenerative spine disease. Patients were grouped as outpatient if they had a length of stay (LOS) < 24 hours and as inpatient if they stayed in the hospital ≥ 24 hours. Patients with ≥ 72-hour stay were excluded from the comparative analysis to increase baseline comparability between the two groups. To create two highly homogeneous groups, optimal matching was performed at a 1:1 ratio between the two groups on 38 baseline variables, including demographics, comorbidities, symptoms, patient-reported scores, indications, and operative details. Outcomes of interest were readmissions and reoperations at 30 days and 3 months after surgery, overall satisfaction, and decrease in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), back pain, and leg pain at 3 months after surgery. Satisfaction was defined as a score of 1 or 2 in the North American Spine Society patient satisfaction index. Noninferiority of outpatient compared with inpatient surgery was defined as risk difference of < 1.5% at a one-sided 97.5% confidence interval. RESULTS A total of 18,689 eligible one- and two-level decompression surgeries were identified. The matched study cohorts consisted of 5016 patients in each group. Nonroutine discharge was slightly less common in the outpatient group (0.6% vs 0.3%, p = 0.01). The 30-day readmission rates were 4.4% and 4.3% for the outpatient and inpatient groups, respectively, while the 30-day reoperation rates were 1.4% and 1.5%. The 3-month readmission rates were 6.3% for both groups, and the 3-month reoperation rates were 3.1% for the outpatient cases and 2.9% for the inpatient cases. Overall satisfaction at 3 months was 88.8% for the outpatient group and 88.4% for the inpatient group. Noninferiority of outpatient surgery was documented for readmissions, reoperations, and patient-reported satisfaction from surgery. CONCLUSIONS Outpatient lumbar decompression surgery demonstrated slightly lower nonroutine discharge rates in comparison with inpatient surgery. Noninferiority in clinical outcomes at 30 days and 3 months after surgery was documented for outpatient compared with inpatient decompression surgery. Additionally, outpatient decompression surgery performed noninferiorly to inpatient surgery in achieving patient satisfaction from surgery.

OBJECTIVE With the expanding indications for and increasing popularity of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for lumbar spinal fusion, large-scale outcomes analysis to compare MIS approaches with open procedures is warranted. METHODS The authors queried the Quality Outcomes Database for patients who underwent elective lumbar fusion for degenerative spine disease. They performed optimal matching, at a 1:2 ratio between patients who underwent MIS and those who underwent open lumbar fusion, to create two highly homogeneous groups in terms of 33 baseline variables (including demographic characteristics, comorbidities, symptoms, patient-reported scores, indications, and operative details). The outcomes of interest were overall satisfaction, decrease in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and back and leg pain, as well as hospital length of stay (LOS), operative time, reoperations, and incidental durotomy rate. Satisfaction was defined as a score of 1 or 2 on the North American Spine Society scale. Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in ODI was defined as ≥ 30% decrease from baseline. Outcomes were assessed at the 3- and 12-month follow-up evaluations. RESULTS After the groups were matched, the MIS and open groups consisted of 1483 and 2966 patients, respectively. Patients who underwent MIS fusion had higher odds of satisfaction at 3 months (OR 1.4, p = 0.004); no difference was demonstrated at 12 months (OR 1.04, p = 0.67). Lumbar stenosis, single-level fusion, higher American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Classification System grade, and absence of spondylolisthesis were most prominently associated with higher odds of satisfaction with MIS compared with open surgery. Patients in the MIS group had slightly lower ODI scores at 3 months (mean difference 1.61, p = 0.006; MCID OR 1.14, p = 0.0495) and 12 months (mean difference 2.35, p < 0.001; MCID OR 1.29, p < 0.001). MIS was also associated with a greater decrease in leg and back pain at both follow-up time points. The two groups did not differ in operative time and incidental durotomy rate; however, LOS was shorter for the MIS group. Revision surgery at 12 months was less likely for patients who underwent MIS (4.1% vs 5.6%, p = 0.032). CONCLUSIONS In patients who underwent lumbar fusion for degenerative spinal disease, MIS was associated with higher odds of satisfaction at 3 months postoperatively. No difference was demonstrated at the 12-month follow-up. MIS maintained a small, yet consistent, superiority in decreasing ODI and back and leg pain, and MIS was associated with a lower reoperation rate.