Bydon, Mohamad

Study Design. This study retrospectively analyzes prospectively collected data. Objective. Here, we aim to determine the influence of preoperative and 12-month modified Japanese Orthopedic Association (mJOA) on satisfaction and understand the change in mJOA severity classification after surgical management of degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM). Summary of Background Data. DCM is a progressive degenerative spine disease resulting from cervical cord compression. The natural progression of DCM is variable; some patients experience periods of stability, while others rapidly deteriorate following disease onset. The mJOA is commonly used to grade and categorize myelopathy symptoms, but its association with postoperative satisfaction has not been previously explored. Methods. The quality and outcomes database (QOD) was queried for patients undergoing elective surgery for DCM. Patients were divided into mild (≥14), moderate (9 to 13), or severe (<9) categories on the mJOA scores. A McNemar–Bowker test was used to assess whether a significant proportion of patients changed mJOA category between preoperative and 12 months postoperative. A multivariable proportional odds ordinal logistic regression model was fitted with 12-month satisfaction as the outcome of interest. Results. We identified 1963 patients who underwent elective surgery for DCM and completed 12-months follow-ups. Comparing mJOA severity level preoperatively and at 12 months revealed that 55% remained in the same category, 37% improved, and 7% moved to a worse category. After adjusting for baseline and surgery-specific variables, the 12-month mJOA category had the highest impact on patient satisfaction (P < 0.001). Conclusion. Patient satisfaction is an indispensable tool for measuring quality of care after spine surgery. In this sample, 12-month mJOA category, regardless of preop mJOA, was significantly correlated with satisfaction. Given these findings, it is important to advise patients of the probability that surgery will change their mJOA severity classification and the changes required to achieve postoperative satisfaction. Level of Evidence: 3

OBJECTIVETranspsoas lateral interbody fusion is one of the lateral minimally invasive approaches for lumbar spine surgery. Most surgeons insert the interbody cage laterally and then insert pedicle or cortical screw and rod instrumentation posteriorly. However, standalone cages have also been used to avoid posterior instrumentation. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, the literature on comparison of the two approaches is sparse.METHODSThe authors performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the available literature on transpsoas lateral interbody fusion by an electronic search of the PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus databases using PRISMA guidelines. They compared patients undergoing transpsoas standalone fusion (TP) with those undergoing transpsoas fusion with posterior instrumentation (TPP).RESULTSA total of 28 studies with 1462 patients were included. Three hundred and seventy-four patients underwent TPP, and 956 patients underwent TP. The mean patient age ranged from 45.7 to 68 years in the TP group, and 50 to 67.7 years in the TPP group. The incidence of reoperation was found to be higher for TP (0.08, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.04–0.11) compared to TPP (0.03, 95% CI 0.01–0.06; p = 0.057). Similarly, the incidence of cage movement was found to be greater in TP (0.18, 95% CI 0.10–0.26) compared to TPP (0.03, 95% CI 0.00–0.05; p < 0.001). Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and visual analog scale (VAS) scores and postoperative transient deficits were found to be comparable between the two groups.CONCLUSIONSThese results appear to suggest that addition of posterior instrumentation to transpsoas fusion is associated with decreased reoperations and cage movements. The results of previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses should be reevaluated in light of these results, which seem to suggest that higher reoperation and subsidence rates may be due to the use of the standalone technique.

OBJECTIVE Back pain and neck pain are two of the most common causes of work loss due to disability, which poses an economic burden on society. Due to recent changes in healthcare policies, patient-centered outcomes including return to work have been increasingly prioritized by physicians and hospitals to optimize healthcare delivery. In this study, the authors used a national spine registry to identify clinical factors associated with return to work at 3 months among patients undergoing a cervical spine surgery. METHODS The authors queried the Quality Outcomes Database registry for information collected from April 2013 through March 2017 for preoperatively employed patients undergoing cervical spine surgery for degenerative spine disease. Covariates included demographic, clinical, and operative variables, and baseline patient-reported outcomes. Multiple imputations were used for missing values and multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to identify factors associated with higher odds of returning to work. Bootstrap resampling (200 iterations) was used to assess the validity of the model. A nomogram was constructed using the results of the multivariable model. RESULTS A total of 4689 patients were analyzed, of whom 82.2% (n = 3854) returned to work at 3 months postoperatively. Among previously employed and working patients, 89.3% (n = 3443) returned to work compared to 52.3% (n = 411) among those who were employed but not working (e.g., were on a leave) at the time of surgery (p < 0.001). On multivariable logistic regression the authors found that patients who were less likely to return to work were older (age > 56–65 years: OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.57–0.85, p < 0.001; age > 65 years: OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.43–0.97, p = 0.02); were employed but not working (OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.20–0.29, p < 0.001); were employed part time (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.42–0.76, p < 0.001); had a heavy-intensity (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.32–0.54, p < 0.001) or medium-intensity (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.46–0.76, p < 0.001) occupation compared to a sedentary occupation type; had workers’ compensation (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.28–0.53, p < 0.001); had a higher Neck Disability Index score at baseline (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.51–0.70, p = 0.017); were more likely to present with myelopathy (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.42–0.63, p < 0.001); and had more levels fused (3–5 levels: OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.35–0.61, p < 0.001). Using the multivariable analysis, the authors then constructed a nomogram to predict return to work, which was found to have an area under the curve of 0.812 and good validity. CONCLUSIONS Return to work is a crucial outcome that is being increasingly prioritized for employed patients undergoing spine surgery. The results from this study could help surgeons identify at-risk patients so that preoperative expectations could be discussed more comprehensively.

Abstract BACKGROUND Given recent differing findings following 2 randomized clinical trials on degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS) surgery, there is a need to better define how subsets of patients fare following surgery. OBJECTIVE To investigate the impact of obesity on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) following DLS surgery. METHODS A total of 12 high-enrolling sites were queried, and we found 797 patients undergoing surgery for grade 1 DLS. For univariate comparisons, patients were stratified by BMI ≥ 30 kg/m 2 (obese) and < 30 kg/m 2 (nonobese). Baseline, 3-mo, and 12-mo follow-up parameters were collected. PROs included the North American Spine Society satisfaction questionnaire, numeric rating scale (NRS) back pain, NRS leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and EuroQoL-5D (EQ-5D) Questionnaire. RESULTS We identified 382 obese (47.9%) and 415 nonobese patients (52.1%). At baseline, obese patients had worse NRS back pain, NRS leg pain, ODI, and EQ-5D scores ( P < .001, P = .01, P < .001, and P = .02, respectively). Both cohorts improved significantly for back and leg pain, ODI, and EQ-5D at 12 mo ( P < .001). At 12 mo, similar proportions of obese and nonobese patients responded that surgery met their expectations (62.6% vs 67.4%, P = .24). In multivariate analyses, BMI was independently associated with worse NRS leg pain and EQ-5D at 12 mo ( P = .01 and P < .01, respectively) despite adjusting for baseline differences. CONCLUSION Obesity is associated with inferior leg pain and quality of life—but similar back pain, disability, and satisfaction—12 mo postoperatively. However, obese patients achieve significant improvements in all PRO metrics at 12 mo.

Study Design. This study retrospectively analyzes prospectively collected data. Objective. The primary aim of this study is to present a scheme for patient-reported outcome (PRO)-based, risk-adjusted rankings of spine surgeons and sites that perform elective lumbar surgery, using the Quality and Outcomes Database (QOD). Summary of Background Data. There is currently no means of determining which spine surgeons or centers are positive or negative outliers with respect to PROs for elective lumbar surgery. This is a critical gap as we move toward a value-based model of health care in which providers assume more accountability for the effectiveness of their treatments. Methods. Random effects regression models were fit for the following outcomes, with QOD site as a fixed effect but surgeon ID as a random effect: Oswestry Disability Index, EQ-5D, back pain and leg pain, and satisfaction. Hierarchical Bayesian models were also fit for each outcome, with QOD site as a random effect and surgeon as a nested random effect. Results. Our study cohort consists of 8834 patients who underwent surgery by 124 QOD surgeons, for the degenerative lumbar diseases. Nonoverlapping Bayesian credible intervals demonstrate that the variance attributed to QOD site was greater than the nested variance attributed to surgeon ID for the included PROs. Conclusion. This study presents a novel strategy for the risk-adjusted, PRO-based ranking of spine surgeons and practices. This can help identify positive and negative outliers, thereby forming the basis for large-scale quality improvement. Assuming adequate coverage of baseline risk adjustment, the choice of surgeon matters when considering PROs after lumbar surgery; however, the choice of site appears to matter more. Level of Evidence: 3

Study Design: This is a prospective cohort study. Objective: To characterize the accuracy of patient recollection of preoperative symptoms after cervical spine surgery. Summary of Background Data: Recall bias is a well-known source of systematic error. The accuracy of patient recall after cervical spine surgery remains unknown. Methods: Consecutive patients undergoing cervical spine surgery for myelopathy or radiculopathy were enrolled. Neck and arm numeric pain scores and Neck Disability Indices were recorded preoperatively. Patients were asked to recall their preoperative status at either short (<1 y) or long-term (≥1 y) follow-up. Actual and recalled scores were compared using paired t tests and relations were quantified using the Pearson correlation coefficients. Multivariable linear regression was used to identify factors impacting recollection. Results: In total, 73 patients with a mean age of 58.2 years were included. Compared with their preoperative scores, patients showed significant improvement in neck pain [mean difference (MD)=−2.9; 95% confidence intervals (CIs), −3.5 to −2.3], arm pain (MD, −3.4; 95% CI, −4.0 to −2.8), and disability (MD, −12.4%; 95% CI, −16.9 to −7.9). Patient recollection of preoperative status was significantly more severe than actual for neck pain (MD, +1.5; 95% CI, 0.8–2.2), arm pain (MD, +2.3; 95% CI, 1.6–3.0), and disability (MD, +5.8%; 95% CI, 2.4–9.2). Moderate correlation between actual and recalled scores with regard to neck (r=0.41), arm (r=0.50) pain, and disability (r=0.67) was seen. This was maintained across age, sex, and time between date of surgery and recollection. Over 30% of patients switched their predominant symptom from neck-to-arm pain or vice versa on recall of their preoperative symptoms. Conclusions: Relying on patient recollection does not provide an accurate measure of preoperative status after cervical spine surgery. Prospective and not retrospective collection of patient-reported outcomes remain the gold standard to measure and interpret outcomes after cervical spine surgery. Recall bias has the potential to affect patient satisfaction and requires further study.

Objective: To determine whether operating on “major” vertebral fractures leads to premature abortion of surgery and/or other acute cardiopulmonary complications. Design: Retrospective review. Clinical Setting: Level 1 trauma center. Patients/Participants and Intervention: We retrospectively queried our institutional Trauma Rregistry for all cases presenting with concomitant rib fractures and surgically managed vertebral fractures. Main Outcome Measurements: The main outcomes included the surgical outcome (aborted vs. successfully performed), total and Intensive Care Unit length of stay (LOS), adverse discharge, mortality, and functional outcomes. Results: We found 57 cases with concomitant segmental rib fractures and surgically managed vertebral fractures. Seven patients (12%) received a rib fixation, of which 1 received before vertebral fixation and 6 after. Importantly, 4 vertebral fixation cases (7.02%) had to be aborted intraoperatively because of the inability to tolerate prone positioning for surgery. For case–control analysis, we performed propensity score matching to obtain matched controls, that is, cases of vertebral fixation but no rib fractures. On matched case–control analysis, patients with concomitant segmental rib fractures and vertebral fractures were found to have higher Intensive Care Unit LOS [median = 3 days (Inter-Quartile Range = 0–9) versus. 8.4 days, P = 0.003], whereas total LOS, frequency of complete, incomplete or functional spinal cord injury, discharge to rehab, and discharge to nursing home were found to be similar between the 2 groups. Conclusion: Our findings demonstrate that segmental rib fractures with concomitant vertebral fractures undergoing surgical treatment represent a subset of patients that may be at increased risk of intraoperative cardio-pulmonary complications and rib fixation before prone spine surgery for cases in which the neurological status is stable is reasonable. Level of Evidence: Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Study Design. This study retrospectively analyzes prospectively collected data. Objective. Here we aim to develop predictive models for 3-month medical and surgical readmission after elective lumbar surgery, based on a multi-institutional, national spine registry. Summary of Background Data. Unplanned readmissions place considerable stress on payers, hospitals, and patients. Medicare data reveals a 30-day readmission rate of 7.8% for lumbar-decompressions and 13.0% for lumbar-fusions, and hospitals are now being penalized for excessive 30-day readmission rates by virtue of the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program. Methods. The Quality and Outcomes Database (QOD) was queried for patients undergoing elective lumbar surgery for degenerative diseases. The QOD prospectively captures 3-month readmissions through electronic medical record (EMR) review and self-reported outcome questionnaires. Distinct multivariable logistic regression models were fitted for surgery-related and medical readmissions adjusting for patient and surgery-specific variables. Results. Of the total 33,674 patients included in this study 2079 (6.15%) reported at least one readmission during the 90-day postoperative period. The odds of medical readmission were significantly higher for older patients, males versus females, African Americans versus Caucasion, those with higher American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, diabetes, coronary artery disease, higher numbers of involved levels, anterior only or anterior–posterior versus posterior approach; also, for patients who were unemployed compared with employed patients and those with high baseline Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). The odds of surgery-related readmission were significantly greater for patients with a higher body mass index (BMI), a higher ASA grade, female versus male, and African Americans versus Caucasians; also, for patients with severe depression, more involved spinal levels, anterior-only surgical approaches and higher baseline ODI scores. Conclusion. In this study we present internally validated predictive models for medical and surgical readmission after elective lumbar spine surgery. These findings set the stage for targeted interventions with a potential to reduce unnecessary readmissions, and also suggest that medical and surgical readmissions be treated as distinct clinical events. Level of Evidence: 3