Alvi, Mohammed Ali

OBJECTIVEThe National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) and National Readmissions Database (NRD) are two widely used databases for research studies. However, they may not provide generalizable information in regard to individual institutions. Therefore, the objective of the present study was to evaluate 30-day readmissions following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and posterior lumbar fusion (PLF) procedures by using these two national databases and an institutional cohort.METHODSThe NSQIP and NRD were queried for patients undergoing elective ACDF and PLF, with the addition of an institutional cohort. The outcome of interest was 30-day readmissions following ACDF and PLF, which were unplanned and related to the index procedure. Subsequently, univariable and multivariable analyses were conducted to determine the predictors of 30-day readmissions by using both databases and the institutional cohort.RESULTSAmong all identified risk factors, only hypertension was found to be a common risk factor between NRD and the institutional cohort following ACDF. NSQIP and the institutional cohort both showed length of hospital stay to be a significant predictor for 30-day related readmission following PLF. There were no overlapping variables among all 3 cohorts for either ACDF or PLF. Additionally, the national databases identified a greater number of risk factors for 30-day related readmissions than did the institutional cohort for both procedures.CONCLUSIONSOverall, significant differences were seen among all 3 cohorts with regard to top predictors of 30-day unplanned readmissions following ACDF and PLF. The higher quantity of significant predictors found in the national databases may suggest that looking at single-institution series for such analyses may result in underestimation of important variables affecting patient outcomes, and that big data may be helpful in addressing this concern.

OBJECTIVEPlatelet-rich plasma (PRP) is a biological agent obtained by centrifuging a sample of blood and retrieving a high concentration of platelets and plasma components. The concentrate is then stimulated for platelet secretion of various growth factors and cytokines. Although it is not widely used in clinical practice, its role in augmenting bony union among patients undergoing spinal fusion has been assessed in several clinical studies. The objective of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the existing literature to determine the efficacy of PRP use in spinal fusion procedures.METHODSA comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, and EMBASE for studies from all available dates. From eligible studies, data regarding the fusion rate and method of assessing fusion, estimated blood loss (EBL), and baseline and final visual analog scale (VAS) scores were collected as the primary outcomes of interest. Patients were grouped by those undergoing spinal fusion with PRP and bone graft (PRP group) and those only with bone graft (graft-only group).RESULTSThe literature search resulted in 207 articles. Forty-five full-text articles were screened, of which 11 studies were included, resulting in a meta-analysis including 741 patients. Patients without PRP were more likely to have a successful fusion at the last follow-up compared with those with PRP in their bone grafts (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.34–0.84; p = 0.006). There was no statistically significant difference with regard to change in VAS scores (OR 0.00, 95% CI −2.84 to 2.84; p > 0.99) or change in EBL (OR 3.67, 95% CI −67.13–74.48; p = 0.92) between the groups.CONCLUSIONSThis study found that the additional use of PRP was not associated with any significant improvement in patient-reported outcomes and was actually found to be associated with lower fusion rates compared with standard grafting techniques. Thus, PRP may have a limited role in augmenting spinal fusion.

Abstract BACKGROUND The impact of symptom characteristics on outcomes of spine surgery remains elusive. OBJECTIVE To determine the impact of symptom location, severity, and duration on outcomes following lumbar spine surgery. METHODS We queried the Quality Outcomes Database (QOD) for patients undergoing elective lumbar spine surgery for lumbar degenerative spine disease. Multivariable regression was utilized to determine the impact of preoperative symptom characteristics (location, severity, and duration) on improvement in disability, quality of life, return to work, and patient satisfaction at 1 yr. Relative predictor importance was determined using an importance metric defined as Wald χ 2 penalized by degrees of freedom. RESULTS A total of 22 022 subjects were analyzed. On adjusted analysis, we found patients with predominant leg pain were more likely to be satisfied ( P < .0001), achieve minimum clinically important difference (MCID) in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) ( P = .002), and return to work ( P = .03) at 1 yr following surgery without significant difference in Euro-QoL-5D (EQ-5D) ( P = .09) [ref = predominant back pain]. Patients with equal leg and back pain were more likely to be satisfied ( P < .0001), but showed no significant difference in achieving MCID ( P = .22) or return to work ( P = .07). Baseline numeric rating scale-leg pain and symptom duration were most important predictors of achieving MCID and change in EQ-5D. Predominant symptom was not found to be an important determinant of return to work. Worker's compensation was found to be most important determinant of satisfaction and return to work. CONCLUSION Predominant symptom location is a significant determinant of functional outcomes following spine surgery. However, pain severity and duration have higher predictive importance. Return to work is more dependent on sociodemographic features as compared to symptom characteristics.

OBJECTIVELumbar decompression without arthrodesis remains a potential treatment option for cases of low-grade spondylolisthesis (i.e., Meyerding grade I). Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) techniques have recently been increasingly used because of their touted benefits including lower operating time, blood loss, and length of stay. Herein, the authors analyzed patients enrolled in a national surgical registry and compared the baseline characteristics and postoperative clinical and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) between patients undergoing open versus MIS lumbar decompression.METHODSThe authors queried the Quality Outcomes Database for patients with grade I lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis undergoing a surgical intervention between July 2014 and June 2016. Among more than 200 participating sites, the 12 with the highest enrollment of patients into the lumbar spine module came together to initiate a focused project to assess the impact of fusion on PROs in patients undergoing surgery for grade I lumbar spondylolisthesis. For the current study, only patients in this cohort from the 12 highest-enrolling sites who underwent a decompression alone were evaluated and classified as open or MIS (tubular decompression). Outcomes of interest included PROs at 2 years; perioperative outcomes such as blood loss and complications; and postoperative outcomes such as length of stay, discharge disposition, and reoperations.RESULTSA total of 140 patients undergoing decompression were selected, of whom 71 (50.7%) underwent MIS and 69 (49.3%) underwent an open decompression. On univariate analysis, the authors observed no significant differences between the 2 groups in terms of PROs at 2-year follow-up, including back pain, leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index score, EQ-5D score, and patient satisfaction. On multivariable analysis, compared to MIS, open decompression was associated with higher satisfaction (OR 7.5, 95% CI 2.41–23.2, p = 0.0005). Patients undergoing MIS decompression had a significantly shorter length of stay compared to the open group (0.68 days [SD 1.18] vs 1.83 days [SD 1.618], p < 0.001).CONCLUSIONSIn this multiinstitutional prospective study, the authors found comparable PROs as well as clinical outcomes at 2 years between groups of patients undergoing open or MIS decompression for low-grade spondylolisthesis.

The Quality Outcomes Database (QOD), formerly known as the National Neurosurgery Quality Outcomes Database (N 2 QOD), was established by the NeuroPoint Alliance (NPA) in collaboration with relevant national stakeholders and experts. The overarching goal of this project was to develop a centralized, nationally coordinated effort to allow individual surgeons and practice groups to collect, measure, and analyze practice patterns and neurosurgical outcomes. Specific objectives of this registry program were as follows: “1) to establish risk-adjusted national benchmarks for both the safety and effectiveness of neurosurgical procedures, 2) to allow practice groups and hospitals to analyze their individual morbidity and clinical outcomes in real time, 3) to generate both quality and efficiency data to support claims made to public and private payers and objectively demonstrate the value of care to other stakeholders, 4) to demonstrate the comparative effectiveness of neurosurgical and spine procedures, 5) to develop sophisticated ‘risk models’ to determine which subpopulations of patients are most likely to benefit from specific surgical interventions, and 6) to facilitate essential multicenter trials and other cooperative clinical studies.” The NPA has launched several neurosurgical specialty modules in the QOD program in the 7 years since its inception including lumbar spine, cervical spine, and spinal deformity and cerebrovascular and intracranial tumor. The QOD Spine modules, which are the primary subject of this paper, have evolved into the largest North American spine registries yet created and have resulted in unprecedented cooperative activities within our specialty and among affiliated spine care practitioners. Herein, the authors discuss the experience of QOD Spine programs to date, with a brief description of their inception, some of the key achievements and milestones, as well as the recent transition of the spine modules to the American Spine Registry (ASR), a collaboration between the American Association of Neurological Surgeons and the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS).

OBJECTIVE Return to work (RTW) and satisfaction are important outcome measures after surgery for degenerative spine disease. The authors queried the prospective Quality Outcomes Database (QOD) to determine if RTW correlated with patient satisfaction. METHODS The QOD was queried for patients undergoing surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. The primary outcome of interest was correlation between RTW and patient satisfaction, as measured by the North American Spine Society patient satisfaction index (NASS). Secondarily, data on satisfied patients were analyzed to see what patient factors correlated with RTW. RESULTS Of 608 total patients in the QOD spondylolisthesis data set, there were 292 patients for whom data were available on both satisfaction and RTW status. Of these, 249 (85.3%) were satisfied with surgery (NASS score 1–2), and 224 (76.7%) did RTW after surgery. Of the 68 patients who did not RTW after surgery, 49 (72.1%) were still satisfied with surgery. Of the 224 patients who did RTW, 24 (10.7%) were unsatisfied with surgery (NASS score 3–4). There were significantly more people who had an NASS score of 1 in the RTW group than in the non-RTW group (71.4% vs 42.6%, p < 0.05). Failure to RTW was associated with lower level of education, worse baseline back pain (measured with a numeric rating scale), and worse baseline disability (measured with the Oswestry Disability Index [ODI]). CONCLUSIONS There are a substantial number of patients who are satisfied with surgery even though they did not RTW. Patients who were satisfied with surgery and did not RTW typically had worse preoperative back pain and ODI and typically did not have a college education. While RTW remains an important measure after surgery, physicians should be mindful that patients who do not RTW may still be satisfied with their outcome.

Abstract BACKGROUND The factors driving the best outcomes following minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for grade 1 degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis are not clearly elucidated. OBJECTIVE To investigate the factors that drive the best 24-mo patient-reported outcomes (PRO) following MIS surgery for grade 1 degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. METHODS A total of 259 patients from the Quality Outcomes Database lumbar spondylolisthesis module underwent single-level surgery for degenerative grade 1 lumbar spondylolisthesis with MIS techniques (188 fusions, 72.6%). Twenty-four-month follow-up PROs were collected and included the Oswestry disability index (ODI) change (ie, 24-mo minus baseline value), numeric rating scale (NRS) back pain change, NRS leg pain change, EuroQoL-5D (EQ-5D) questionnaire change, and North American Spine Society (NASS) satisfaction questionnaire. Multivariable models were constructed to identify predictors of PRO change. RESULTS The mean age was 64.2 ± 11.5 yr and consisted of 148 (57.1%) women and 111 (42.9%) men. In multivariable analyses, employment was associated with superior postoperative ODI change (β-7.8; 95% CI [−12.9 to −2.6]; P = .003), NRS back pain change (β −1.2; 95% CI [−2.1 to −0.4]; P = .004), EQ-5D change (β 0.1; 95% CI [0.01-0.1]; P = .03), and NASS satisfaction (OR = 3.7; 95% CI [1.7-8.3]; P < .001). Increasing age was associated with superior NRS leg pain change (β −0.1; 95% CI [−0.1 to −0.01]; P = .03) and NASS satisfaction (OR = 1.05; 95% CI [1.01-1.09]; P = .02). Fusion surgeries were associated with superior ODI change (β −6.7; 95% CI [−12.7 to −0.7]; P = .03), NRS back pain change (β −1.1; 95% CI [−2.1 to −0.2]; P = .02), and NASS satisfaction (OR = 3.6; 95% CI [1.6-8.3]; P = .002). CONCLUSION Preoperative employment and surgeries, including a fusion, were predictors of superior outcomes across the domains of disease-specific disability, back pain, leg pain, quality of life, and patient satisfaction. Increasing age was predictive of superior outcomes for leg pain improvement and satisfaction.

OBJECTIVE The nature of the volume-outcome relationship in cases with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) remains unclear, with considerable interhospital variation in patient outcomes. The objective of this study was to understand the state of the volume-outcome relationship at different levels of trauma centers in the United States. METHODS The authors queried the National Trauma Data Bank for the years 2007–2014 for patients with severe TBI. Case volumes for each level of trauma center organized into quintiles (Q1–Q5) served as the primary predictor. Analyzed outcomes included in-hospital mortality, total hospital length of stay (LOS), and intensive care unit (ICU) stay. Multivariable regression models were performed for in-hospital mortality, overall complications, and total hospital and ICU LOSs to adjust for possible confounders. The analysis was stratified by level designation of the trauma center. Statistical significance was established at p < 0.001 to avoid a type I error due to a large sample size. RESULTS A total of 122,445 patients were included. Adjusted analysis did not demonstrate a significant relationship between increasing hospital volume of severe TBI cases and in-hospital mortality, complications, and nonhome hospital discharge disposition among level I–IV trauma centers. However, among level II trauma centers, hospital LOS was longer for the highest volume quintile (adjusted mean difference [MD] for Q5: 2.83 days, 95% CI 1.40–4.26 days, p < 0.001, reference = Q1). For level III and IV trauma centers, both hospital LOS and ICU LOS were longer for the highest volume quintile (adjusted MD for Q5: LOS 4.6 days, 95% CI 2.3–7.0 days, p < 0.001; ICU LOS 3.2 days, 95% CI 1.6–4.8 days, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS Higher volumes of severe TBI cases at a lower level of trauma center may be associated with a longer LOS. These results may assist policymakers with target interventions for resource allocation and point to the need for careful prehospital decision-making in patients with severe TBI.

Study Design: This was a retrospective cohort study. Objectives: When anterior cervical osteophytes become large enough, they may cause dysphagia. There is a paucity of work examining outcomes and complications of anterior cervical osteophyte resection for dysphagia. Methods: Retrospective review identified 19 patients who underwent anterior cervical osteophyte resection for a diagnosis of dysphagia. The mean age was 71 years and follow-up, 4.7 years. The most common level operated on was C3-C4 (13, 69%). Results: Following anterior cervical osteophyte resection, 79% of patients had improvement in dysphagia. Five patients underwent cervical fusion; there were no episodes of delayed or iatrogenic instability requiring fusion. Fusion patients were younger (64 vs 71 years, P = .05) and had longer operative times (315 vs 121 minutes, P = .01). Age of 75 years or less trended toward improvement in dysphagia ( P = .09; OR = 18.8; 95% CI 0.7-478.0), whereas severe dysphagia trended toward increased complications ( P = .07; OR = 11.3; 95% CI = 0.8-158.5). Body mass index, use of an exposure surgeon, diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis diagnosis, surgery at 3 or more levels, prior neck surgery, and fusion were not predictive of improvement or complication. Conclusions: Anterior cervical osteophyte resection improves swallowing function in the majority of patients with symptomatic osteophytes. Spinal fusion can be added to address stenosis and other underlying cervical disease and help prevent osteophyte recurrence, whereas intraoperative navigation can be used to ensure complete osteophyte resection without breaching the cortex or entering the disc space. Because of the relatively high complication rate, patients should undergo thorough multidisciplinary workup with swallow evaluation to confirm that anterior cervical osteophytes are the primary cause of dysphagia prior to surgery.

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND It remains unclear if minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) is comparable to traditional, open TLIF because of the limitations of the prior small-sample-size, single-center studies reporting comparative effectiveness. OBJECTIVE To compare MI-TLIF to traditional, open TLIF for grade 1 degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis in the largest study to date by sample size. METHODS We utilized the prospective Quality Outcomes Database registry and queried patients with grade 1 degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis who underwent single-segment surgery with MI- or open TLIF methods. Outcomes were compared 24 mo postoperatively. RESULTS A total of 297 patients were included: 72 (24.2%) MI-TLIF and 225 (75.8%) open TLIF. MI-TLIF surgeries had lower mean body mass indexes (29.5 ± 5.1 vs 31.3 ± 7.0, P = .0497) and more worker's compensation cases (11.1% vs 1.3%, P < .001) but were otherwise similar. MI-TLIF had less blood loss (108.8 ± 85.6 vs 299.6 ± 242.2 mL, P < .001), longer operations (228.2 ± 111.5 vs 189.6 ± 66.5 min, P < .001), and a higher return-to-work (RTW) rate (100% vs 80%, P = .02). Both cohorts improved significantly from baseline for 24-mo Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Numeric Rating Scale back pain (NRS-BP), NRS leg pain (NRS-LP), and Euro-Qol-5 dimension (EQ-5D) ( P > .001). In multivariable adjusted analyses, MI-TLIF was associated with lower ODI (β = −4.7; 95% CI = −9.3 to −0.04; P = .048), higher EQ-5D (β = 0.06; 95% CI = 0.01-0.11; P = .02), and higher satisfaction (odds ratio for North American Spine Society [NASS] 1/2 = 3.9; 95% CI = 1.4-14.3; P = .02). Though trends favoring MI-TLIF were evident for NRS-BP ( P = .06), NRS-LP ( P = .07), and reoperation rate ( P = .13), these results did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSION For single-level grade 1 degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis, MI-TLIF was associated with less disability, higher quality of life, and higher patient satisfaction compared with traditional, open TLIF. MI-TLIF was associated with higher rates of RTW, less blood loss, but longer operative times. Though we utilized multivariable adjusted analyses, these findings may be susceptible to selection bias.