Carreon, Leah Y.

OBJECTIVE Smoking has been shown to negatively impact spinal health, as well as the outcomes of spinal fusion. Published reports show conflicting data regarding whether smoking negatively impacts patient outcomes following lumbar decompression. The objective of this study was to investigate whether smoking affects the outcomes of patients undergoing lumbar decompression for spinal stenosis or herniated disc. METHODS The Quality Outcomes Database was queried for patients with spinal stenosis or lumbar disc herniation who underwent one- or two-level lumbar decompression without fusion. All patients had preoperative and 12-month outcome measures and were divided into groups of nonsmokers and current smokers. Outcomes were compared between the two groups, as well as the percentage of patients reaching the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) threshold for numeric rating scale (NRS) back and leg pain scores and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). RESULTS Of 17,271 patients, 14,233 were nonsmokers and 3038 were current smokers. Smokers had worse baseline NRS back and leg pain, ODI, and EQ-5D scores and experienced slightly less improvement in all measures following lumbar decompression (p ≤ 0.009), although changes were largely similar, and a high percentage of patients achieved the MCID thresholds for NRS back pain (78% nonsmokers vs 75% smokers), NRS leg pain (79% nonsmokers vs 73% smokers), and ODI (74% nonsmokers vs 68% smokers). Comparison of propensity-matched cohorts did not identify any difference in outcomes in smokers versus nonsmokers. CONCLUSIONS In patients undergoing lumbar decompression for spinal stenosis or herniated disc, smokers demonstrated slightly less improvement in outcomes compared with nonsmokers, and a high proportion of both groups achieved meaningful improvement with surgery. While smoking cessation should be strongly encouraged in all patients, lumbar decompression procedures for spinal stenosis and herniated disc should not be denied to smokers.

OBJECTIVE Some patients treated surgically for grade 1 spondylolisthesis require revision surgery. Outcomes after revision surgery are not well studied. The objective of this study was to determine how revision surgery impacts patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients undergoing decompression only or decompression and fusion (D+F) for grade 1 spondylolisthesis within 5 years of the index surgery. METHODS Patients in the 12 highest Quality Outcomes Database (QOD) enrolling sites with a diagnosis of grade 1 spondylolisthesis were identified and the incidence of revision surgery between the decompression-only and D+F patients were compared. PROs were compared between cohorts requiring revision surgery versus a single index procedure. RESULTS Of 608 patients enrolled, 409 had complete 5-year data available for this study. Eleven (13.3%) of 83 patients underwent revision in the decompression-only group as well as 32 (9.8%) of 326 in the D+F group. For the entire cohort, patients requiring revision had significantly worse PROs at 5 years: Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) 27.4 versus 19.4, p = 0.008; numeric rating scale for back pain (NRS-BP) 4.1 versus 3.0, p = 0.013; and NRS for leg pain (NRS-LP) 3.4 versus 2.1, p = 0.029. In the decompression-only group, the change in 5-year PROs was not impacted by revision status: ODI 31.9 versus 24.2, p = 0.287; NRS-BP 1.9 versus 2.9, p = 0.325; and NRS-LP 6.2 versus 3.7, p = 0.011. In the D+F group, the change in 5-year PROs was diminished if patients required revision: ODI 19.1 versus 29.1, p = 0.001; NRS-BP 3.0 versus 4.0, p = 0.170; and NRS-LP 2.3 versus 4.6, p = 0.001. CONCLUSIONS The most common reasons for reoperation within 5 years in the decompression-only group were repeat decompression and instability, whereas in the D+F group the most common reason was adjacent-segment disease. The need for revision resulted in modestly diminished benefit compared with patients with no revisions. These differences were greater in the fusion cohort compared with the decompression-only cohort. The mean PRO improvement still far exceeded minimal clinically important difference thresholds for all measures for patients who underwent a revision surgery.

Study Design. Retrospective review of prospectively collected data. Objective. The aim of this study was to investigate what factors predict delayed improvement after surgical treatment of low-grade spondylolisthesis. Summary of Background Data. Lumbar surgery leads to clinical improvement in the majority of patients with low-grade spondylolisthesis. Most patients improve rapidly after surgery, but some patients demonstrate a delayed clinical course. Methods. The Quality and Outcomes Database (QOD) was queried for grade 1 spondylolisthesis patients who underwent surgery who had patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) collected at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months, including back and leg pain Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D). Patients were stratified as “early responders” reaching MCID at 3 months and maintaining improvement through 12 months and “delayed responders” not reaching MCID at 3 months but ultimately reaching MCID at 12 months. These two groups were compared with respect to factors which predicted delayed improvement. Results. Of 608 patients enrolled, 436 (72%) met inclusion criteria for this study. Overall, 317 patients (72.7%) reached MCID for ODI at 12 months following surgery. Of these patients, 249 (78.5%) exhibited a rapid clinical improvement trajectory and had achieved ODI MCID threshold by the 3-month postoperative follow-up. Sixty-eight patients (21.4%) showed a delayed trajectory, and had not achieved ODI MCID threshold at 3 months, but did ultimately reach MCID at 12-month follow-up. Factors associated with delayed improvement included impaired preoperative ambulatory status, better baseline back and leg pain scores, and worse 3-month leg pain scores ( P <0.01). Conclusions. The majority of patients undergoing surgery for low-grade spondylolisthesis reach ODI MCID threshold rapidly, within the first 3 months after surgery. Factors associated with a delayed clinical course include impaired preoperative ambulation status, relatively better preoperative back and leg pain, and persistent leg pain at 3 months.

Study Design. External validation using prospectively collected data. Objectives. To determine the model performance of “Dialogue Support” (DS) in predicting outcomes after lumbar spine surgery. Summary of Background Data. To help clinicians discuss risk versus benefit with patients considering lumbar fusion surgery, DS has been made available online. As DS was created using a Swedish sample, there is a need to study how well DS performs in alternative populations. Patients and Methods. Preoperative data from patients enrolled in the Quality Outcomes Database were entered into DS. The probability for each patient to report satisfaction, achieve success (leg pain improvement ≥3), or have no leg pain 12 months after surgery was extracted and compared with their actual 12-month postoperative data. The ability of DS to identify patients in the Quality Outcomes Database who report satisfaction, achieve success, or have no leg pain 12 months after surgery was determined using Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, goodness-of-fit tests, and calibration plots. Results. There was a significant improvement in all outcomes in 23,928 cases included in the analysis from baseline to 12 months postoperative. Most (84%) reported satisfaction, 67% achieved success, and 44% were pain-free 12 months postoperative. Receiver operating characteristic analysis showed that DS had a low ability to predict satisfaction [area under the curve (AUC) = 0.606], success (AUC = 0.546), and being pain-free (AUC = 0.578) at 12 months postoperative; poor fit for satisfaction (<0.001) and being pain-free (P = 0.004), but acceptable fit for success (P = 0.052). Calibration plots showed underestimation for satisfaction and success, but acceptable estimates for being pain-free. Conclusion. DS is not directly transferable to predict satisfaction and success after lumbar surgery in a US population. This may be due to differences in patient characteristics, weights of the variables included, or the exclusion of unknown variables associated with outcomes. Future studies to better understand and improve the transferability of these models are needed.

OBJECTIVE Clear diagnostic delineation is necessary for the development of a strong evidence base in lumbar spinal surgery. Experience with existing national databases suggests that International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Edition (ICD-10) coding is insufficient to support that need. The purpose of this study was to assess agreement between surgeon-specified diagnostic indication and hospital-reported ICD-10 codes for lumbar spine surgery. METHODS Data collection for the American Spine Registry (ASR) includes an option to denote the surgeon’s specific diagnostic indication for each procedure. For cases treated between January 2020 and March 2022, surgeon-delineated diagnosis was compared with the ICD-10 diagnosis generated by standard ASR electronic medical record data extraction. For decompression-only cases, the primary analysis focused on the etiology of neural compression as determined by the surgeon versus that determined on the basis of the related ICD-10 codes extracted from the ASR database. For lumbar fusion cases, the primary analysis compared structural pathology, which may have required fusion, as determined by the surgeon versus that determined on the basis of the extracted ICD-10 codes. This allowed for identification of agreement between surgeon delineation and extracted ICD-10 codes. RESULTS In 5926 decompression-only cases, agreement between the surgeon and ASR ICD-10 codes was 89% for spinal stenosis and 78% for lumbar disc herniation and/or radiculopathy. Both the surgeon and database indicated no structural pathology (i.e., none) suggesting the need for fusion in 88% of cases. In 5663 lumbar fusion cases, agreement was 76% for spondylolisthesis but poor for other diagnostic indications. CONCLUSIONS Agreement between surgeon-specified diagnostic indication and hospital-reported ICD-10 codes was best for patients who underwent decompression only. In the fusion cases, agreement with ICD-10 codes was best in the spondylolisthesis group (76%). In cases other than spondylolisthesis, agreement was poor due to multiple diagnoses or lack of an ICD-10 code that reflected the pathology. This study suggested that standard ICD-10 codes may be inadequate to clearly define the indications for decompression or fusion in patients with lumbar degenerative disease.

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.

Background: Up to 10% of free-hand pedicle screws are malpositioned, and 1 in 300 patients may undergo return to surgery for revision of malpositioned screws. The indications for revision of asymptomatic malpositioned screws have not been carefully examined in the literature. We sought to evaluate the threshold among spinal deformity surgeons for revision of malpositioned screws. Methods: Twelve experienced spine surgeons reviewed x-ray and computed tomographic images of 32 malpositioned pedicle screws with variable degrees of anterior, medial, and lateral breeches. The surgeons were asked whether based on the image they would revise the screw: (1) intraoperatively before rod placement; (2) intraoperatively after rod placement; (3) in clinic with an asymptomatic patient. For each scenario, we assumed stable neuromonitoring and no neurological changes. Agreement and multirater κ was calculated. Results: There was good agreement as to which screws were malpositioned (80% agreement, κ=0.703). After the rod was placed or postoperatively (scenarios 2 and 3), surgeons less frequently recommended screw revision, and there was greater variability among the surgeons’ recommendations. For return to surgery from clinic for asymptomatic screw revision, % agreement was only 65% (κ=0.477). The majority recommended revision surgery for screws which approached the dura (10/12) or the aorta (7/12 surgeons). Half of the surgeons recommended revision surgery for an asymptomatic screw if the entire screw diameter was in the canal. Revision surgery was not recommended for asymptomatic patients with screws partially violating the canal (<½ the screw diameter), malpositioned laterally in the rib head, or with small anterior cortical violations remote from a vascular structure. Conclusions: There is significant variability of opinion among surgeons regarding which malpositioned screws can be safely observed in an asymptomatic patient. Given the frequency of malpositioned screws and morbidity of surgical return to surgery, more long-term data are needed to develop practice guidelines for determining which screws require revision surgery. Level of Evidence: Level III—retrospective comparative study.