Stroink, Ann R.

OBJECTIVE The Quality Outcomes Database (QOD) was established in 2012 by the NeuroPoint Alliance, a nonprofit organization supported by the American Association of Neurological Surgeons. Currently, the QOD has launched six different modules to cover a broad spectrum of neurosurgical practice—namely lumbar spine surgery, cervical spine surgery, brain tumor, stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), functional neurosurgery for Parkinson’s disease, and cerebrovascular surgery. This investigation aims to summarize research efforts and evidence yielded through QOD research endeavors. METHODS The authors identified all publications from January 1, 2012, to February 18, 2023, that were produced by using data collected prospectively in a QOD module without a prespecified research purpose in the context of quality surveillance and improvement. Citations were compiled and presented along with comprehensive documentation of the main study objective and take-home message. RESULTS A total of 94 studies have been produced through QOD efforts during the past decade. QOD-derived literature has been predominantly dedicated to spinal surgical outcomes, with 59 and 22 studies focusing on lumbar and cervical spine surgery, respectively, and 6 studies focusing on both. More specifically, the QOD Study Group—a research collaborative between 16 high-enrolling sites—has yielded 24 studies on lumbar grade 1 spondylolisthesis and 13 studies on cervical spondylotic myelopathy, using two focused data sets with high data accuracy and long-term follow-up. The more recent neuro-oncological QOD efforts, i.e., the Tumor QOD and the SRS Quality Registry, have contributed 5 studies, providing insights into the real-world neuro-oncological practice and the role of patient-reported outcomes. CONCLUSIONS Prospective quality registries are an important resource for observational research, yielding clinical evidence to guide decision-making across neurosurgical subspecialties. Future directions of the QOD efforts include the development of research efforts within the neuro-oncological registries and the American Spine Registry—which has now replaced the inactive spinal modules of the QOD—and the focused research on high-grade lumbar spondylolisthesis and cervical radiculopathy.

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.

Abstract As neurological surgery evolved into its own subspecialty early in the 20th century, a need arose to create an environment for communication and education among those surgeons working in this burgeoning surgical discipline. As the socioeconomic climate in health care began to change in the United States, an unforeseen need arose that was outside the scope of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons, Congress of Neurological Surgeons, and Society of Neurological Surgeons. The capacity to understand and address the evolving socioeconomic landscape and to offer a platform for advocacy required a new entity. Grassroots efforts of neurosurgeons at the state level ultimately yielded a formal organization of state neurosurgical societies to fill this void by recognizing, understanding, and addressing socioeconomic factors affecting the practice of neurological surgery. This formal organization became the Council of State Neurosurgical Societies (CSNS). The CSNS provides a forum in which state societies can meet to identify, understand, and advocate for policies on behalf of organized neurosurgery. The purpose of this paper is to detail the history of the formation of the CSNS. By understanding this history and the need for the development of the CSNS, it is hoped that its evolving role as a voice for neurological surgeons in the modern era of health care will be made clear.