Dominari, Asimina

Study Design. Systematic review and meta-analysis. Objective. To assess how operative order affects clinical outcomes and complications in patients with concomitant lumbar spinal and hip pathologies. Summary of Background Data. Concomitant lumbar spinal and hip pathologies are becoming increasingly prevalent in the growing population. Determining the optimal operative order for surgical treatment remains challenging, particularly when comparing spine arthrodesis followed by hip arthroplasty (SAHA) with hip arthroplasty followed by spine arthrodesis (HASA). Prior studies report conflicting results regarding outcomes and complications. Methods. A comprehensive literature search was performed to identify studies reporting on postoperative outcomes and complications in patients with concomitant lumbar spinal and hip pathologies. Random-effects model meta-analysis of pooled outcomes was performed comparing operative order groups (SAHA and HASA), with postoperative complications and revisions being our primary endpoints. Results. A total of 22 studies, yielding 161,326 patients who received surgical treatment for concomitant lumbar spinal and hip pathologies, were included. The majority of patients underwent SAHA (pooled estimate: 88.4%, 95% CI: 76.9–96.3%, P =0.01). Females comprised 56.1% (95% CI: 49.2–62.8%) of the study population. The mean age was 70.6±6.4 years, and the mean follow-up duration was 2.6±2.1 years. The mean number of treated levels was 2.1±1.4. No significant differences were noted between the SAHA and HASA groups with respect to complications, including hip dislocation ( P =0.7), mechanical loosening ( P =0.8), periprosthetic fractures ( P =0.7), deep venous thrombosis (DVT) ( P =0.8), and infection ( P =0.9). Revisions were required in 3.6% of patients in the SAHA group (95% CI: 2.5–4.9%) and 2.6% of patients in the HASA group (95% CI: 0.5–6.2%, P =0.5). Conclusion. Among patients surgically treated for concomitant lumbar spinal and hip pathologies, SAHA was significantly more commonly performed than HASA. Our analysis shows that postoperative complications and revisions did not significantly differ depending on operative order.

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.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Cervical spinal cord injury (SCI) can occur in the absence of easily identifiable osseoligamentous abnormalities, such as fractures and dislocations. The role of surgery in the management of this condition remains to be elucidated. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted to identify studies investigating outcomes after surgical management of cervical SCI without fracture and dislocation. Random-effects model meta-analysis was performed, with neurological improvement and time to surgery as primary end points. Subgroup analysis by time to surgery was performed to assess neurological improvement between patients undergoing surgery within 72 hours of injury vs later than 72 hours after injury. RESULTS: A total of 16 studies yielding 398 surgically treated patients with this condition were analyzed. The mean age at the time of injury was 52 ± 33.8 years, and male patients comprised 86.4% (95% CI: 76.6%-94.4%). The mean number of spinal cord segments affected was 2.5 ± 4. Injury was most commonly inflicted by falls (58.4%, 95% CI: 46.6%-69.9%), followed by motor vehicle accidents (30.5%, 95% CI: 23.4%-38%). Preoperatively, abnormal magnetic resonance imaging findings were observed in 125 patients (31.4%), and included: Intervertebral disk injury in 33 patients (26.4%); Cord edema in 23 patients (18.4%); Cord contusion in 22 patients (17.6%); Ligamentous injury in 6 patients (4.8%); and MRI abnormalities not specified in 41 patients (32.8%). Postoperatively, neurological improvement was noted in 62% (95% CI: 21.4%-95.2%) of patients who underwent surgery within 72 hours after injury, and in 71.1% (95% CI: 33%-98.1%) of the patients who underwent surgery later than 72 hours after injury ( P = .8). CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis demonstrated high rates of neurological improvement in patients treated surgically for cervical SCI without fracture and dislocation. No significant differences were noted between patients undergoing surgery acutely, within 72 hours after injury, and patients being treated surgically later in the course of cervical SCI without fracture and dislocation.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Although the value of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) regarding assessing patient and quality-of-care outcomes is increasingly recognized within spine surgery, the benefits and challenges associated with the collection and clinical use of PROs remain to be established. The aim of this review was to discuss the published evidence on the wealth of clinically relevant data provided by PRO measures within spine surgery. METHODS: The peer-reviewed literature was searched for articles investigating the value of PRO data within spine surgery. Articles evaluating the collection and clinical use of PRO data within spine surgery, especially about monitoring clinical and quality-of-care outcomes, were critically analyzed. RESULTS: Although postoperative outcomes after spine surgery previously relied on the physician's evaluation of a patient's physical recovery, in 1978, a new evaluation scheme for patients undergoing surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis shifted the weight of postoperative outcome evaluation from objective physical measures to measures that depended on the party performing the evaluation, including the physician, patient, or family. Currently, several standardized PRO scales whose performance has been rigorously investigated in validation studies are used to assess patients' perception of pain and functional and psychometric outcomes after spine surgery. Overall, the benefits of using PROs in these patients include establishing patient involvement in their care, strengthening patient-provider rapport, and promoting patient-centered care, while further standardizing patient outcomes by incorporating the self-reported aspect of clinical outcomes into standardized outcome measures and creating a framework for further quality outcomes research and health care policymaking. CONCLUSION: Physician-reported outcomes are often unable to provide a comprehensive evaluation of clinical and quality-of-care outcomes within spine surgery. Incorporation of PROs in patient evaluation is an integral part of efforts aimed at achieving excellence in health care delivery, as PROs help gain insight into individual patients' experiences and integrate an appraisal of patients' perspectives into clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE Chordomas are rare tumors of the skull base and spine believed to arise from the vestiges of the embryonic notochord. These tumors are locally aggressive and frequently recur following resection and adjuvant radiotherapy. Proton therapy has been introduced as a tissue-sparing option because of the higher level of precision that proton-beam techniques offer compared with traditional photon radiotherapy. This study aimed to compare recurrence in patients with chordomas receiving proton versus photon radiotherapy following resection by applying tree-based machine learning models. METHODS The clinical records of all patients treated with resection followed by adjuvant proton or photon radiotherapy for chordoma at Mayo Clinic were reviewed. Patient demographics, type of surgery and radiotherapy, tumor recurrence, and other variables were extracted. Decision tree classifiers were trained and tested to predict long-term recurrence based on unseen data using an 80/20 split. RESULTS Fifty-three patients with a mean ± SD age of 55.2 ± 13.4 years receiving surgery and adjuvant proton or photon therapy to treat chordoma were identified; most patients were male. Gross-total resection was achieved in 54.7% of cases. Proton therapy was the most common adjuvant radiotherapy (84.9%), followed by conventional or external-beam radiation therapy (9.4%) and stereotactic radiosurgery (5.7%). Patients receiving proton therapy exhibited a 40% likelihood of having recurrence, significantly lower than the 88% likelihood observed in those treated with nonproton therapy. This was confirmed on logistic regression analysis adjusted for extent of tumor resection and tumor location, which revealed that proton adjuvant radiotherapy was associated with a decreased risk of recurrence (OR 0.1, 95% CI 0.01–0.71; p = 0.047) compared with photon therapy. The decision tree algorithm predicted recurrence with an accuracy of 90% (95% CI 55.5%–99.8%), with the lowest risk of recurrence observed in patients receiving gross-total resection with adjuvant proton therapy (23%). CONCLUSIONS Following resection, adjuvant proton therapy was associated with a lower risk of chordoma recurrence compared with photon therapy. The described machine learning models were able to predict tumor progression based on the extent of tumor resection and adjuvant radiotherapy modality used.