Chen, Selby G.

Background: Pulse pressure variation (PPV) is widely used to guide fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients, but its accuracy in the prone position remains uncertain. Prone positioning alters respiratory mechanics and venous return, potentially diminishing the respiratory variation in stroke volume that PPV is designed to detect. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of PPV for predicting fluid responsiveness during prone spine surgery. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane through July 2025 for prospective studies evaluating PPV in adults undergoing prone spine surgery. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, assessed risk of bias using QUADAS-2, and pooled diagnostic performance using a bivariate random-effects model. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD420251106134). Results: Of 599 records, 34 underwent full-text review, and 10 studies (433 patients) were included. PPV thresholds ranged from 7% to 15%. Most studies were at low risk of bias except for the index test because thresholds were determined post hoc. For predicting fluid responsiveness, PPV had a pooled sensitivity of 68% (95% CI: 61%-75%) and specificity of 76% (95% CI: 65%-84%), with a summary area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.72 (95% CI: 0.64-0.80). Conclusions: PPV showed only moderate diagnostic performance for predicting fluid responsiveness during prone spine surgery. Its performance may have been influenced by threshold variability, heterogeneous reference standards, fluid-challenge protocols, ventilation strategies, and positioning systems. PPV should therefore be interpreted alongside complementary dynamic assessments rather than in isolation, particularly during lung-protective ventilation.

OBJECTIVE Hundreds of thousands of Americans undergo decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis annually. The mild (minimally invasive lumbar decompression) procedure was developed as a potentially less invasive alternative to open decompression; however, much of the evidence has been gathered from industry-sponsored studies. The present study sought to compare real-world clinical outcomes between the mild procedure and open decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis. METHODS All patients who underwent the mild procedure at a single-institution, multisite, tertiary care center from 2005 to October 2024 were included. One-to-one propensity score matching was used to identify patients who underwent open decompression at the same institution, with age, sex, smoking, and comorbidities as covariates. Primary outcomes were change in pain on the numeric rating scale (NRS), surgical reoperation, and perioperative complications. For pain, the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) was defined as a 30% improvement in NRS score. RESULTS A total of 175 patients who underwent the mild procedure (mean age 76.3 ± 8.7 years; 44.6% female) were matched to 175 patients treated with open decompression (mean age 75.4 ± 8.7 years; 44.0% female). Among patients with at least 60 days of follow-up, those treated with open decompression were more likely to achieve the MCID for pain (43.1% vs 22.2%, p < 0.001). Patients treated with mild were more likely to require reoperation (46.2% vs 29.3%, p = 0.008). Those who underwent the mild procedure experienced lower rates of durotomies (0% vs 2.9%, p = 0.024) but had higher rates of neurological deficits (6.3% vs 0.6%, p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS For patients with symptomatic lumbar stenosis, those who underwent open decompression were more likely to achieve pain improvement and less likely to require reoperation compared with those who underwent the mild procedure.

OBJECTIVE Surgical site infection (SSI) is a leading cause of morbidity following posterior spine surgery. The optimal choice of skin closure technique depending on patient- and procedure-specific characteristics remains to be elucidated. METHODS The Neurosurgery Enterprise Registry (NER) at Mayo Clinic was queried for patients who underwent posterior spine surgery from 2017 to 2023. Propensity matching was performed to match patients on the basis of the development of SSI and baseline characteristics, including age, sex, race, and comorbidities. Perioperative outcomes were analyzed using data from the NER and medical records. RESULTS A total of 18,842 cases of posterior spine surgery were identified in the NER, and SSI was observed in 154 cases (0.8%). Of these patients, 308 patients were included in the 1:1 propensity score–matched cohort analysis, with 154 patients included in each group. Sutures were used in 224 patients (72.7%) and staples in 84 patients (27.3%) (p < 0.01). Female patients comprised 45.1% of the sutures group and 46.4% of the staples group (p = 0.8). The mean ± SD age was 59.8 ± 15.4 years in the sutures group and 60.8 ± 11.9 years in the staples group (p = 0.6). Fusion was performed in 27.2% of patients in the sutures group and 44% in the staples group (p < 0.01). Multilevel fusion comprised 68.9% of fusion cases in the sutures group and 67.6% in the staples group (p = 0.8). Comorbidities, such as diabetes (p = 0.6), hypertension (p = 0.1), and the use of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) (p = 0.5) and immunosuppressants (p = 0.2), did not differ between groups. Univariate analysis performed in the propensity score–matched cohort showed that SSI was observed in 53.6% of patients in the sutures group and 40.5% in the staples group (p = 0.04). No significant differences were noted regarding 30-day (p = 0.3), 90-day (p = 0.2), and 1-year (p = 0.3) readmissions and 30-day (p = 0.7), 90-day (p = 0.8), and 1-year (p = 0.8) reoperations. On multivariable logistic regression, SSI was not significantly associated with the choice of skin closure technique (p = 0.3). CONCLUSIONS After adjustment for spinal fusion, number of fused levels, the use of immunosuppressants, and other risk factors, SSI development was not significantly associated with the use of sutures versus staples following posterior spine surgery in our institution. Additionally, no significant differences were observed regarding baseline characteristics and other perioperative outcomes. The authors’ analysis shows that skin closure technique did not significantly affect SSI rates and other outcomes in these patients.

OBJECTIVE The implementation of robotics and spinal anesthesia (SA) in spine surgery is rapidly expanding, offering significant benefits for an increasingly complex and aging patient population with degenerative spinal disease. Here, the authors present the largest cohort to date evaluating the combined use of these two techniques in minimally invasive (MIS) transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). METHODS The authors retrospectively analyzed surgical outcomes of a series of patients who underwent robot-assisted (RA)–MIS TLIF under SA and general anesthesia (GA) at their institution from 2018 to 2024. Primary outcomes included operative times and postoperative pain intensity. Secondary outcomes included estimated blood loss, intraoperative complications, postoperative functional status, length of stay (LOS), and discharge status. To address potential confounders, a 1:1 propensity score–matching and regression analysis was implemented. Statistical analyses were conducted using Python. RESULTS A total of 209 patients underwent RA-MIS TLIF, with 31 (14.83%) receiving SA and 178 (85.17%) GA. After propensity score matching, the SA cohort demonstrated significantly shorter median total operating room (OR) time, total procedure time, time from entering the OR to skin incision, and time from closure to leaving the OR (all p < 0.01). Additionally, postoperative pain scores were significantly lower (p < 0.01), and LOS was significantly shorter (p < 0.01) in the SA cohort. Regression analysis, adjusting for potential confounders, further supported these findings. CONCLUSIONS RA-MIS TLIF fusion under SA is a safe and effective approach that significantly reduces operative time, postoperative pain, and hospital LOS in patients undergoing surgery for degenerative lumbar spine disease.

Study design: Cohort study. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate influence of facet cysts on outcomes in patients undergoing lumbar decompression, and the influence of spinal fusion in patients undergoing decompression for facet cysts. Summary of Background Data: The impact of facet cysts on outcomes following lumbar spine surgery for degenerative spine disease remains unclear. Methods: Our multicenter institutional Neurosurgery Enterprise Registry was queried for patients who underwent lumbar decompression for degenerative spine conditions. Patients were divided into 2 cohorts: those with lumbar spine facet cysts and those without. Retrospective propensity-score matching was performed using 13 baseline variables to adjust for potential confounding factors, including age, sex, race, body mass index, and comorbidities. Secondary analysis comparing outcomes in patients with facet cysts cases undergoing decompression only versus those undergoing decompression and fusion was conducted. Results: A total of 6768 patients were reviewed, of which 188 (2.8%) had facet cysts, which underwent lumbar decompression during 2019–2023. After 3:1 matching, patients with facet cysts were compared with 564 patients without it. We found no significant differences in LOS, nonroutine discharge, postoperative complications, readmissions, and reoperations. In addition, in cases with facet cysts, decompression reported no increased risk for discharge opioids, readmissions, and reoperations, whereas fusion (in a separate cohort of 127 patients with facet cysts) was associated with an increased risk for nonroutine discharge (3.7% vs. 10.2%, P=0.021), complications (2.1% vs. 7.1%, P=0.042), and longer LOS (0.89±1.69 vs. 3.74±2.03 d, P<0.001) and operative time (138.78±62.99 vs. 273.07±111.51 min, P <0.001). Conclusions: The presence of facet cysts does not significantly affect outcomes of lumbar decompression for degenerative spine disease. Decompression alone for facet cysts can have better outcomes than decompression and fusion. The need for fusion should be weighted with its higher risks of complications, longer hospital stays, and nonroutine discharges.

Study Design Systematic Review. Objective To assess the current literature regarding the accuracy of different imaging modalities and criteria used to assess lumbar fusion, and their correlation with surgical direct observation as the current Gold Standard. Methods Following PRISMA guidelines, we conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library, studies were included if they focused on patients with a prior history of lumbar interbody fusion and at least 1 year of radiographic follow-up. The review assessed the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of different imaging techniques, and their correlation with surgical findings. Results Thirteen studies (1989-2019) were reviewed, including 715 patients, common imaging modalities included plain radiographs (53.8%), Computed Tomography (CT) (69.2%), and dynamic radiographs (30.7%). CT appeared as the most utilized modality post-2006. There was substantial variability in diagnostic accuracy, with CT showing high variability in sensitivity and specificity. Descriptive criteria for fusion were widely used, but interobserver agreement was generally low. Conclusion The review highlights a lack of standardized criteria for assessing lumbar fusion. Despite advancements in imaging techniques, the variability in diagnostic parameters suggests a need for consensus and multicentric studies to stablish reliable, universal criteria for evaluating fusion success.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Nongeneral anesthesia (non-GA) spine surgery is growing in popularity and has facilitated earlier postoperative recovery, reduced cost, and fewer complications compared with spine surgery under general anesthesia (GA). Changes in reimbursement policies have been demonstrated to correlate with clinical practice; however, they have yet to be studied for GA vs non-GA spine procedures. We aimed to investigate trends in physician reimbursement for GA vs non-GA spine surgery in the United States. METHODS: We queried the ACS-NSQIP for GA and non-GA (regional, epidural, spinal, and anesthesia care/intravenous sedation) spine surgeries during 2011–2020. Work relative value units per operative hour (wRVUs/h) were retrieved for decompression or stabilization of the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine. Propensity score matching (1:1) was performed using all baseline variables. RESULTS: We included 474 706 patients who underwent spine decompression or stabilization procedures. GA was used in 472 248 operations, whereas 2458 operations were non-GA. The proportion of non-GA spine operations significantly increased during the study period. Operative times ( P < .001) and length of stays ( P < .001) were shorter in non-GA when compared with GA procedures. Non-GA lumbar procedures had significantly higher wRVUs/h when compared with the same procedures performed under GA (decompression; P < .001 and stabilization; P = .039). However, the same could not be said about cervicothoracic procedures. Lumbar decompression surgeries using non-GA witnessed significant yearly increase in wRVUs/h ( P < .01) contrary to GA ( P = .72). Physician reimbursement remained stable for procedures of the cervical or thoracic spine regardless of the anesthesia. CONCLUSION: Non-GA lumbar decompressions and stabilizations are associated with higher and increasing reimbursement trends (wRVUs/h) compared with those under GA. Reimbursement for cervical and thoracic surgeries was equal regardless of the type of anesthesia and being relatively stable during the study period. The adoption of a non-GA technique relative to the GA increased significantly during the study period.