El Sammak, Sally

OBJECTIVE The objective of this study was to compare clinical and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) between posterior foraminotomy and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) in patients presenting with cervical radiculopathy. METHODS The Quality Outcomes Database was queried for patients who had undergone ACDF or posterior foraminotomy for radiculopathy. To create two highly homogeneous groups, optimal individual matching was performed at a 5:1 ratio between the two groups on 29 baseline variables (including demographic characteristics, comorbidities, symptoms, patient-reported scores, underlying pathologies, and levels treated). Outcomes of interest were length of stay, reoperations, patient-reported satisfaction, increase in EQ-5D score, and decrease in Neck Disability Index (NDI) scores for arm and neck pain as long as 1 year after surgery. Noninferiority analysis of achieving patient satisfaction and minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in PROs was performed with an accepted risk difference of 5%. RESULTS A total of 7805 eligible patients were identified: 216 of these underwent posterior foraminotomy and were matched to 1080 patients who underwent ACDF. The patients who underwent ACDF had more underlying pathologies, lower EQ-5D scores, and higher NDI and neck pain scores at baseline. Posterior foraminotomy was associated with shorter hospitalization (0.5 vs 0.9 days, p < 0.001). Reoperations within 12 months were significantly more common among the posterior foraminotomy group (4.2% vs 1.9%, p = 0.04). The two groups performed similarly in PROs, with posterior foraminotomy being noninferior to ACDF in achieving MCID in EQ-5D and neck pain scores but also having lower rates of maximal satisfaction at 12 months (North American Spine Society score of 1 achieved by 65.2% posterior foraminotomy patients vs 74.6% of ACDF patients, p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS The two procedures were found to be offered to different populations, with ACDF being selected for patients with more complicated pathologies and symptoms. After individual matching, posterior foraminotomy was associated with a higher reoperation risk within 1 year after surgery compared to ACDF (4.2% vs 1.9%). In terms of 12-month PROs, posterior foraminotomy was noninferior to ACDF in improving quality of life and neck pain. The two procedures also performed similarly in improving NDI scores and arm pain, but ACDF patients had higher maximal satisfaction rates.

OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to explore the preoperative patient characteristics that affect surgical decision-making when selecting an anterior or posterior operative approach in patients diagnosed with cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM). METHODS This was a multi-institutional, retrospective study of the prospective Quality Outcomes Database (QOD) Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy module. Patients aged 18 years or older diagnosed with primary CSM who underwent multilevel (≥ 2-level) elective surgery were included. Demographics and baseline clinical characteristics were collected. RESULTS Of the 841 patients with CSM in the database, 492 (58.5%) underwent multilevel anterior surgery and 349 (41.5%) underwent multilevel posterior surgery. Surgeons more often performed a posterior surgical approach in older patients (mean 64.8 ± 10.6 vs 58.5 ± 11.1 years, p < 0.001) and those with a higher American Society of Anesthesiologists class (class III or IV: 52.4% vs 46.3%, p = 0.003), a higher rate of motor deficit (67.0% vs 58.7%, p = 0.014), worse myelopathy (mean modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association score 11.4 ± 3.1 vs 12.4 ± 2.6, p < 0.001), and more levels treated (4.3 ± 1.3 vs 2.4 ± 0.6, p < 0.001). On the other hand, surgeons more frequently performed an anterior surgical approach when patients were employed (47.2% vs 23.2%, p < 0.001) and had intervertebral disc herniation as an underlying pathology (30.7% vs 9.2%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS The selection of approach for patients with CSM depends on patient demographics and symptomology. Posterior surgery was performed in patients who were older and had worse systemic disease, increased myelopathy, and greater levels of stenosis. Anterior surgery was more often performed in patients who were employed and had intervertebral disc herniation.

IMPORTANCEPatients undergoing spine surgery often experience severe pain. The optimal dosage of pregabalin and gabapentin for pain control and safety in these patients has not been well established.OBJECTIVETo evaluate the associations of pain, opioid consumption, and adverse events with different dosages of pregabalin and gabapentin in patients undergoing spine surgery.DATA SOURCESPubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane library, and Scopus databases were searched for articles until August 7, 2021.STUDY SELECTIONRandomized clinical trials conducted among patients who received pregabalin or gabapentin while undergoing spine surgery were included.DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESISTwo investigators independently performed data extraction following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) reporting guideline. The network meta-analysis was conducted from August 2022 to February 2023 using a random-effects model.MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary outcome was pain intensity measured using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), and secondary outcomes included opioid consumption and adverse events.RESULTSTwenty-seven randomized clinical trials with 1861 patients (median age, 45.99 years [range, 20.00-70.00 years]; 759 women [40.8%]) were included in the systematic review and network meta-analysis. Compared with placebo, the VAS pain score was lowest with gabapentin 900 mg per day, followed by gabapentin 1200 mg per day, gabapentin 600 mg per day, gabapentin 300 mg per day, pregabalin 300 mg per day, pregabalin 150 mg per day, and pregabalin 75 mg per day. Additionally, gabapentin 900 mg per day was found to be associated with the lowest opioid consumption among all dosages of gabapentin and pregabalin, with a mean difference of −22.07% (95% CI, −33.22% to −10.92%) for the surface under the cumulative ranking curve compared with placebo. There was no statistically significant difference in adverse events (nausea, vomiting, and dizziness) among all treatments. No substantial inconsistency between direct and indirect evidence was detected for all outcomes.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEThese findings suggest that gabapentin 900 mg per day before spine surgery is associated with the lowest VAS pain score among all dosages. In addition, no differences in adverse events were noted among all treatments.

OBJECTIVE The American Spine Registry (ASR) is a collaborative effort between the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons and the American Association of Neurological Surgeons. The goal of this study was to evaluate how representative the ASR is of the national practice with spinal procedures, as recorded in the National Inpatient Sample (NIS). METHODS The authors queried the NIS and the ASR for cervical and lumbar arthrodesis cases performed during 2017–2019. International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision and Current Procedural Terminology codes were used to identify patients undergoing cervical and lumbar procedures. The two groups were compared for the overall proportion of cervical and lumbar procedures, age distribution, sex, surgical approach features, race, and hospital volume. Outcomes available in the ASR, such as patient-reported outcomes and reoperations, were not analyzed due to nonavailability in the NIS. The representativeness of the ASR compared to the NIS was assessed via Cohen’s d effect sizes, and absolute standardized mean differences (SMDs) of < 0.2 were considered trivial, whereas > 0.5 were considered moderately large. RESULTS A total of 24,800 arthrodesis procedures were identified in the ASR for the period between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2019. During the same time period, 1,305,360 cases were recorded in the NIS. Cervical fusions comprised 35.9% of the ASR cohort (8911 cases) and 36.0% of the NIS cohort (469,287 cases). The two databases presented trivial differences in terms of patient age and sex for all years of interest across both cervical and lumbar arthrodeses (SMD < 0.2). Trivial differences were also noted in the distribution of open versus percutaneous procedures of the cervical and lumbar spine (SMD < 0.2). Among lumbar cases, anterior approaches were more common in the ASR than in the NIS (32.1% vs 22.3%, SMD = 0.22), but the discrepancy among cervical cases in the two databases was trivial (SMD = 0.03). Small differences were illustrated in terms of race, with SMDs < 0.5, and a more significant discrepancy was identified in the geographic distribution of participating sites (SMDs of 0.7 and 0.74 for cervical and lumbar cases, respectively). For both of these measures, SMDs in 2019 were smaller than those in 2018 and 2017. CONCLUSIONS The ASR and NIS databases presented a very high similarity in proportions of cervical and lumbar spine surgeries, as well as similar distributions of age and sex, and distribution of open versus endoscopic approach. Slight discrepancies in anterior versus posterior approach among lumbar cases and patient race, and more significant discrepancies in geographic representation were also identified, yet decreasing trends in differences suggested the improving representativeness of the ASR over the course of time and its progressive growth. These conclusions are important to underline the external validity of quality investigations and research conclusions to be drawn from analyses in which the ASR is used.

Study Design: Prospective observational study, level of evidence 1 for prognostic investigations. Objectives: To evaluate the prevalence of sleep impairment and predictors of improved sleep quality 24 months postoperatively in cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) using the quality outcomes database. Summary of Background Data: Sleep disturbances are a common yet understudied symptom in CSM. Materials and Methods: The quality outcomes database was queried for patients with CSM, and sleep quality was assessed through the neck disability index sleep component at baseline and 24 months postoperatively. Multivariable logistic regressions were performed to identify risk factors of failure to improve sleep impairment and symptoms causing lingering sleep dysfunction 24 months after surgery. Results: Among 1135 patients with CSM, 904 (79.5%) had some degree of sleep dysfunction at baseline. At 24 months postoperatively, 72.8% of the patients with baseline sleep symptoms experienced improvement, with 42.5% reporting complete resolution. Patients who did not improve were more like to be smokers [adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 1.85], have osteoarthritis (aOR: 1.72), report baseline radicular paresthesia (aOR: 1.51), and have neck pain of ≥4/10 on a numeric rating scale. Patients with improved sleep noted higher satisfaction with surgery (88.8% vs 72.9%, aOR: 1.66) independent of improvement in other functional areas. In a multivariable analysis including pain scores and several myelopathy-related symptoms, lingering sleep dysfunction at 24 months was associated with neck pain (aOR: 1.47) and upper (aOR: 1.45) and lower (aOR: 1.52) extremity paresthesias. Conclusion: The majority of patients presenting with CSM have associated sleep disturbances. Most patients experience sustained improvement after surgery, with almost half reporting complete resolution. Smoking, osteoarthritis, radicular paresthesia, and neck pain ≥4/10 numeric rating scale score are baseline risk factors of failure to improve sleep dysfunction. Improvement in sleep symptoms is a major driver of patient-reported satisfaction. Incomplete resolution of sleep impairment is likely due to neck pain and extremity paresthesia.

BACKGROUND: Changes in reimbursement policies have been demonstrated to correlate with clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: To investigate trends in physician reimbursement for anterior, posterior, and combined anterior/posterior (AP) lumbar arthrodesis and relative utilization of AP. METHODS: We queried the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Project registry for anterior, posterior, and AP lumbar arthrodeses during 2010 and 2020. Work relative value units per operative hour (wRVUs/h) were calculated for each procedure. Trends in reimbursement and utilization of the AP approach were assessed with linear regression. Subgroup analyses of age and underlying pathology of AP arthrodesis were also performed. RESULTS: During 2010 and 2020, AP arthrodesis was associated with significantly higher average wRVUs/h compared with anterior and posterior arthrodesis (AP = 17.4, anterior = 12.4, posterior = 14.5). The AP approach had a significant yearly increase in wRVUs/h (coefficient = 0.48, P = .042), contrary to anterior (coefficient = −0.01, P = .308) and posterior (coefficient = −0.13, P = .006) approaches. Utilization of AP approaches over all arthrodeses increased from 7.5% in 2010 to 15.3% in 2020 (yearly average increase 0.79%, P < .001). AP fusions increased significantly among both degenerative and deformity cases (coefficients 0.88 and 1.43, respectively). The mean age of patients undergoing AP arthrodesis increased by almost 10 years from 2010 to 2020. Rates of major 30-day complications were 2.7%, 3.1%, and 3.5% for AP, anterior, and posterior arthrodesis, respectively. CONCLUSION: AP lumbar arthrodesis was associated with higher and increasing reimbursement (wRVUs/h) during the period 2010 to 2020. Reimbursement for anterior arthrodesis was relatively stable, while reimbursement for posterior arthrodesis decreased. The utilization of the combined AP approach relative to the other approaches increased significantly during the period of interest.

OBJECTIVE Anterior-to-psoas lumbar interbody fusion (ATP-LIF), more commonly referred to as oblique lateral interbody fusion, and lateral transpsoas lumbar interbody fusion (LTP-LIF), also known as extreme lateral interbody fusion, are the two commonly used lateral approaches for performing a lumbar fusion procedure. These approaches help overcome some of the technical challenges associated with traditional approaches for lumbar fusion. In this systematic review and indirect meta-analysis, the authors compared operative and patient-reported outcomes between these two select approaches using available studies. METHODS Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) approach, the authors conducted an electronic search using the PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus databases for studies published before May 1, 2019. Indirect meta-analysis was conducted on fusion rate, cage movement (subsidence plus migration), permanent deficits, and transient deficits; results were depicted as forest plots of proportions (effect size [ES]). RESULTS A total of 63 studies were included in this review after applying the exclusion criteria, of which 26 studies investigated the outcomes of ATP-LIF, while 37 studied the outcomes of LTP-LIF. The average fusion rate was found to be similar between the two groups (ES 0.97, 95% CI 0.84–1.00 vs ES 0.94, 95% CI 0.91–0.97; p = 0.561). The mean incidence of cage movement was significantly higher in the ATP-LIF group compared with the LTP-LIF group (stand-alone: ES 0.15, 95% CI 0.06–0.27 vs ES 0.09, 95% CI 0.04–0.16 [p = 0.317]; combined: ES 0.18, 95% CI 0.07–0.32 vs ES 0.02, 95% CI 0.00–0.05 [p = 0.002]). The mean incidence of reoperations was significantly higher in patients undergoing ATP-LIF than in those undergoing LTP-LIF (ES 0.02, 95% CI 0.01–0.03 vs ES 0.04, 95% CI 0.02–0.07; p = 0.012). The mean incidence of permanent deficits was similar between the two groups (stand-alone: ES 0.03, 95% CI 0.01–0.06 vs ES 0.05, 95% CI 0.01–0.12 [p = 0.204]; combined: ES 0.03, 95% CI 0.01–0.06 vs ES 0.03, 95% CI 0.00–0.08 [p = 0.595]). The postoperative changes in visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores were both found to be higher for ATP-LIF relative to LTP-LIF (VAS: weighted average 4.11 [SD 2.03] vs weighted average 3.75 [SD 1.94] [p = 0.004]; ODI: weighted average 28.3 [SD 5.33] vs weighted average 24.3 [SD 4.94] [p < 0.001]). CONCLUSIONS These analyses indicate that while both approaches are associated with similar fusion rates, ATP-LIF may be related to higher odds of cage movement and reoperations as compared with LTP-LIF. Furthermore, there is no difference in rates of permanent deficits between the two procedures.