Qureshi, Sheeraz A.

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: A multicenter, retrospective review of C5 palsy after cervical spine surgery. Objective: Postoperative C5 palsy is a known complication of cervical decompressive spinal surgery. The goal of this study was to review the incidence, patient characteristics, and outcome of C5 palsy in patients undergoing cervical spine surgery. Methods: We conducted a multicenter, retrospective review of 13 946 patients across 21 centers who received cervical spine surgery (levels C2 to C7) between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2011, inclusive. P values were calculated using 2-sample t test for continuous variables and χ 2 tests or Fisher exact tests for categorical variables. Results: Of the 13 946 cases reviewed, 59 patients experienced a postoperative C5 palsy. The incidence rate across the 21 sites ranged from 0% to 2.5%. At most recent follow-up, 32 patients reported complete resolution of symptoms (54.2%), 15 had symptoms resolve with residual effects (25.4%), 10 patients did not recover (17.0%), and 2 were lost to follow-up (3.4%). Conclusion: C5 palsy occurred in all surgical approaches and across a variety of diagnoses. The majority of patients had full recovery or recovery with residual effects. This study represents the largest series of North American patients reviewed to date.

Study Design: Retrospective multicenter case series study. Objective: Because cervical dural tears are rare, most surgeons have limited experience with this complication. A multicenter study was performed to better understand the presentation, treatment, and outcomes following cervical dural tears. Methods: Multiple surgeons from 23 institutions retrospectively identified 21 rare complications that occurred between 2005 and 2011, including unintentional cervical dural tears. Demographic data and surgical history were obtained. Clinical outcomes following surgery were assessed, and any reoperations were recorded. Neck Disability Index (NDI), modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association (mJOA), Nurick classification (NuC), and Short-Form 36 (SF36) scores were recorded at baseline and final follow-up at certain centers. All data were collected, collated, and analyzed by a private research organization. Results: There were 109 cases of cervical dural tears among 18 463 surgeries performed. In 101 cases (93%) there was no clinical sequelae following successful dural tear repair. There were statistical improvements ( P < .05) in mJOA and NuC scores, but not NDI or SF36 scores. No specific baseline or operative factors were found to be associated with the occurrence of dural tears. In most cases, no further postoperative treatments of the dural tear were required, while there were 13 patients (12%) that required subsequent treatment of cerebrospinal fluid drainage. Analysis of those requiring further treatments did not identify an optimum treatment strategy for cervical dural tears. Conclusions: In this multicenter study, we report our findings on the largest reported series (n = 109) of cervical dural tears. In a vast majority of cases, no subsequent interventions were required and no clinical sequelae were observed.

Study Design: Multicenter retrospective study. Objectives: To investigate the risk of symptomatic recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy (RLNP) following cervical spine surgery, to examine risk factors for its development, and to report its treatment and outcomes. Methods: A multicenter study from 21 high-volume surgical centers from the AOSpine North America Clinical Research Network was performed. Each center screened for rare complications following cervical spine surgery, including RLNP. Patients were included if they underwent cervical spine surgery (levels from C2 to C7) between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2011. Data were analyzed with regard to complication treatment and outcome. Cases were compared to a control group from the AOSpine CSM and CSM-I studies. Results: Three centers reported 19 cases of RLNP from a cohort of 1345 patients. The reported incidence of RLNP ranged from 0.6% to 2.9% between these 3 centers. Fifteen patients (79%) in the RLNP group were approached from the left side. Ten patients (52.6%) required treatment for RLNP—6 required medical therapy (steroids), 1 interventional treatment (injection laryngoplasty), and 3 conservative therapy (speech therapy). When examining outcomes, 73.7% (14/19) of cases resolved completely, 15.8% (3/19) resolved with residual effects, and in 10.5% (2/19) of cases this could not be determined. Conclusions: In this multicenter study examining rare complications following cervical spine surgery, the risk of RLNP after cervical spine surgery ranged from 0.6% to 2.9% between centers. Though rare, it was found that 16% of patients may experience partial resolution with residual effects, and 74% resolve completely.