Rhee, John M.

Study Design: A national prospective cervical spine surgery registry was developed to archive radiographic studies, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and surgical implant data to assess long-term safety. Objective: To describe the design, development, funding, and implementation of a cervical spine data registry for 1000 patients with myelopathy and radiculopathy. Summary of Background Data: While surgery for cervical radiculopathy and myelopathy is safe and effective, there is significant practice variation among spine surgeons. While randomized clinical trials (RCTs) can provide high-quality comparative effectiveness data, RCTs lack the ability to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of various surgical procedures and implants among heterogenous real-world patient populations. The CSRS Registry was designed to collect patient demographics, outcomes, radiographic imaging, surgical approach, and implant data for the purpose of conducting high-quality research. Methods: Patients with cervical myelopathy or radiculopathy were enrolled in the CSRS National Registry. De-identified patient data, validated PROMs, radiographic data, and implant data were collected from multiple clinical sites across the United States. Results: One thousand patients [mean age, 58 y; 456 (46%) women] were enrolled, with 31% follow-up at 1 year. Five hundred ninety-two patients were diagnosed with radiculopathy, 252 with myelopathy, and 156 with radiculopathy and myelopathy. Patients had significant improvements in their PROMs after surgery. At 1 year, the mean NDI score improved from 37.2 to 20.9 ( P <0.001). The mean self-reported P-mJOA score at baseline was 14.2 and improved to 15.2 by 1 year ( P <0.001). Baseline CSDI score was 23.6 and improved with a 1-year decrease to an average score of 13.6 ( P <0.001). There was significant improvement in PROMIS-10 Physical Health score from 41.0 to 45.9 (n=311; P <0.001) at 1-year follow-up. Conclusions: The CSRS Registry has successfully collected clinical outcomes data that is being leveraged for comparative effectiveness research and evaluations of the long-term safety and effectiveness of spinal implants.

Study Design: Cross-sectional study. Objective: To evaluate for areas of consensus and divergence of opinion within the spine community regarding the management of cervical spondylotic conditions and acute traumatic central cord syndrome (ATCCS) and the influence of the patient's age, disease severity, and myelomalacia. Summary of Background Data: There is ongoing disagreement regarding the indications for, and urgency of, operative intervention in patients with mild degenerative myelopathy, moderate to severe radiculopathy, isolated axial symptomatology with evidence of spinal cord compression, and ATCCS without myelomalacia. Methods: A survey request was sent to 330 attendees of the Cervical Spine Research Society (CSRS) 2021 Annual Meeting to assess practice patterns regarding the treatment of cervical stenosis, myelopathy, radiculopathy, and ATCCS in 16 unique clinical vignettes with associated MRIs. Operative versus nonoperative treatment consensus was defined by a management option selected by >80% of survey participants. Results: Overall, 116 meeting attendees completed the survey. Consensus supported nonoperative management for elderly patients with axial neck pain and adults with axial neck pain without myelomalacia. Operative management was indicated for adult patients with mild myelopathy and myelomalacia, adult patients with severe radiculopathy, elderly patients with severe radiculopathy and myelomalacia, and elderly ATCCS patients with pre-existing myelopathic symptoms. Treatment discrepancy in favor of nonoperative management was found for adult patients with isolated axial symptomatology and myelomalacia. Treatment discrepancy favored operative management for elderly patients with mild myelopathy, adult patients with mild myelopathy without myelomalacia, elderly patients with severe radiculopathy without myelomalacia, and elderly ATCCS patients without preceding symptoms. Conclusions: Although there is uncertainty regarding the treatment of mild myelopathy, operative intervention was favored for nonelderly patients with evidence of myelomalacia or radiculopathy and for elderly patients with ATCCS, especially if pre-injury myelopathic symptoms were present. Level of Evidence: Level V.

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.

Study Design. Prospective cohort study. Objective. To characterize the accuracy of patient recollection of preoperative symptoms after lumbar spine surgery. Summary of Background Data. Although patient-reported outcomes have become important in the evaluation of spine surgery patients, the accuracy of patient recall remains unknown. Methods. Patients undergoing lumbar decompression with or without fusion were enrolled. Back and leg Numeric Pain Scores and Oswestry Disability Indices were recorded preoperatively. Patients were asked to recall their preoperative status at a minimum of 1 year after surgery. Actual and recalled scores were compared using paired t tests and relations were quantified using Pearson correlation coefficients. Multivariable linear regression was used to identify factors that affected recollection. Results. Sixty-two patients with a mean age of 66.1 years were included. Compared to their preoperative scores, patients showed significant improvement in back pain (mean difference [MD] = −3.2, 95% CI −4.0 to −2.4), leg pain (MD −3.3, 95% CI −4.3 to −2.2), and disability (MD −25.0%, 95% CI −28.7 to −19.6). Patient recollection of preoperative status was significantly more severe than actual for back pain (MD +2.3, 95% CI 1.5–3.2), leg pain (MD +1.8, 95% CI 0.9–2.7), and disability (MD +9.6%, 95% CI 5.6–14.0). No significant correlation between actual and recalled scores with regards to back (r = 0.18) or leg (r = 0.24) pain and only moderate correlation with disability (r = 0.44) were seen. This was maintained across age, sex, and time between date of surgery and recollection. More than 40% of patients switched their predominant symptom from back pain to leg pain or leg pain to back pain on recall. Conclusion. Relying on patient recollection does not provide an accurate measure of preoperative status after lumbar spine surgery. Recall bias indicates the importance of obtaining true baseline scores and patient-reported outcomes prospectively and not retrospectively. Level of Evidence: 2