Macki, Mohamed

Study Design: Analysis of prospectively collected data. Objective: To assess if systemic illness severity affects cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) surgery outcomes. Summary of Background Data: It remains unclear if CSM patients with poor physical status/severe systemic illness benefit as much from surgery as those in good condition. Methods: Using the Quality Outcomes Database CSM cohort and the American Association of Anesthesiology (ASA) grade as a surrogate for illness burden, we compared patients with (ASA 3–4) and without (ASA 1–2) severe systemic illness, including rates of readmission and 24-month minimal clinically important differences (MCID) achievement for patient-reported outcomes (PROs)—numerical rating score (NRS) arm and neck pain, neck pain-related disability (NDI), and quality of life (EQ-5D). Results: Of 1141 CSM patients, 1062 had ASA grades recorded. Of these 1062 patients, 70.2% had a 2-year follow-up for mJOA, and 81%–84% had a follow-up for NRS arm and neck, NDI, and EQ-5D. Five hundred twenty-one patients (49.1%) had mild (ASA 1–2) and 541 (50.9%) had severe systemic illness (ASA 3–4). The severe disease cohort was older (63.3±11.0 vs. 57.4±11.7), had higher BMI (31.4±7.0 vs. 28.9±5.6), had more comorbidities (diabetes, coronary artery disease, depression), and had less independent ambulation (71.3% vs. 90.6%) ( P <0.05). At baseline, severe disease patients had worse NRS arm (5.2±3.5 vs. 4.7±3.4) and neck (5.5±3.2 vs. 5.1±3.3) pain, NDI (40.5±20.1 vs. 36.8±21.0), and EQ-5D (0.53±0.22 vs. 0.59±0.22) scores ( P <0.05). Perioperatively, the severe disease cohort had longer hospitalizations (2.4±2.6 vs. 1.7±2.0 days) and increased nonhome discharges (17% vs. 5%) ( P <0.05). The severe disease cohort had higher 90-day readmissions (7.6% vs. 2.5%), including surgery-related (3.7% vs. 1.5%) and non–surgery-related reasons (3.9% vs. 1.0%) ( P <0.05). On multivariate analysis, increased ASA grade was significantly associated with 90-day readmissions (OR: 2.55 per 1-grade increase, 95% CI: 1.38–4.83). However, both severe and mild disease cohorts had similarly high rates of achieving 2-year MCID for mJOA (67.5% vs. 66.0%), NRS arm (72.0% vs. 74.1%), neck (69.5% vs. 69.4%) pain, NDI (63.1% vs. 68.1%), and EQ-5D (67.9% vs. 66.9%) ( P >0.05). Conclusion: Patients with severe systemic illness (higher ASA) have worse baseline PROs and higher 90-day readmissions. However, they achieve similar MCID rates for mJOA and all measured PROs 2 years postoperatively.

OBJECTIVE Intramedullary spinal cord tumors (IMSCTs) are rare tumors with heterogeneous presentations and natural histories that complicate their management. Standardized guidelines are lacking on when to surgically intervene and the appropriate aggressiveness of resection, especially given the risk of new neurological deficits following resection of infiltrative tumors. Here, the authors present the results of a modified Delphi method using input from surgeons experienced with IMSCT removal to construct a framework for the operative management of IMSCTs based on the clinical, radiographic, and tumor-specific characteristics. METHODS A modified Delphi technique was conducted using a group of 14 neurosurgeons experienced in IMSCT resection. Three rounds of written correspondence, surveys, and videoconferencing were carried out. Participants were queried about clinical and radiographic criteria used to determine operative candidacy and guide decision-making. Members then completed a final survey indicating their choice of observation or surgery, choice of resection strategy, and decision to perform duraplasty, in response to a set of patient- and tumor-specific characteristics. Consensus was defined as ≥ 80% agreement, while responses with 70%–79% agreement were defined as agreement. RESULTS Thirty-six total characteristics were assessed. There was consensus favoring surgical intervention for patients with new-onset myelopathy (86% agreement), chronic myelopathy (86%), or progression from mild to disabling numbness (86%), but disagreement for patients with mild numbness or chronic paraplegia. Age was not a determinant of operative candidacy except among frail patients, who were deemed more suitable for observation (93%). Well-circumscribed (93%) or posteriorly located tumors reaching the surface (86%) were consensus surgical lesions, and participants agreed that the presence of syringomyelia (71%) and peritumoral T2 signal change (79%) were favorable indications for surgery. There was consensus that complete loss of transcranial motor evoked potentials with a 50% decrease in the D-wave amplitude should halt further resection (93%). Preoperative symptoms seldom influenced choice of resection strategy, while a distinct cleavage plane (100%) or visible tumor-cord margins (100%) strongly favored gross-total resection. CONCLUSIONS The authors present a modified Delphi technique highlighting areas of consensus and agreement regarding surgical management of IMSCTs. Although not intended as a substitute for individual clinical decision-making, the results can help guide care of these patients. Additionally, areas of controversy meriting further investigation are highlighted.

OBJECTIVE The authors sought to compare 3-level anterior with posterior fusion surgical procedures for the treatment of multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM). METHODS The authors analyzed prospective data from the 14 highest enrolling sites of the Quality Outcomes Database CSM module. They compared 3-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and posterior cervical laminectomy and fusion (PCF) surgical procedures, excluding surgical procedures crossing the cervicothoracic junction. Rates of reaching the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were compared at 24 months postoperatively. Multivariable analyses adjusted for potential confounders elucidated in univariable analysis. RESULTS Overall, 199 patients met the inclusion criteria: 123 ACDF (61.8%) and 76 PCF (38.2%) patients. The 24-month follow-up rates were similar (ACDF 90.2% vs PCF 92.1%, p = 0.67). Preoperatively, ACDF patients were younger (60.8 ± 10.2 vs 65.0 ± 10.3 years, p < 0.01), and greater proportions were privately insured (56.1% vs 36.8%, p = 0.02), actively employed (39.8% vs 22.8%, p = 0.04), and independently ambulatory (14.6% vs 31.6%, p < 0.01). Otherwise, the cohorts had equivalent baseline modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association (mJOA), Neck Disability Index (NDI), numeric rating scale (NRS)–arm pain, NRS–neck pain, and EQ-5D scores (p > 0.05). ACDF patients had reduced hospitalization length (1.6 vs 3.9 days, p < 0.01) and a greater proportion had nonroutine discharge (7.3% vs 22.8%, p < 0.01), but they had a higher rate of postoperative dysphagia (13.5% vs 3.5%, p = 0.049). Compared with baseline values, both groups demonstrated improvements in all outcomes at 24 months (p < 0.05). In multivariable analyses, after controlling for age, insurance payor, employment status, ambulation status, and other potential clinically relevant confounders, ACDF was associated with a greater proportion of patients with maximum satisfaction on the North American Spine Society Patient Satisfaction Index (NASS) (NASS score of 1) at 24 months (69.4% vs 53.7%, OR 2.44, 95% CI 1.17–5.09, adjusted p = 0.02). Otherwise, the cohorts shared similar 24-month outcomes in terms of reaching the MCID for mJOA, NDI, NRS–arm pain, NRS–neck pain, and EQ-5D score (adjusted p > 0.05). There were no differences in the 3-month readmission (ACDF 4.1% vs PCF 3.9%, p = 0.97) and 24-month reoperation (ACDF 13.5% vs PCF 18.6%, p = 0.36) rates. CONCLUSIONS In a cohort limited to 3-level fusion surgical procedures, ACDF was associated with reduced blood loss, shorter hospitalization length, and higher routine home discharge rates; however, PCF resulted in lower rates of postoperative dysphagia. The procedures yielded comparably significant improvements in functional status (mJOA score), neck and arm pain, neck pain–related disability, and quality of life at 3, 12, and 24 months. ACDF patients had significantly higher odds of maximum satisfaction (NASS score 1). Given comparable outcomes, patients should be counseled on each approach’s complication profile to aid in surgical decision-making.

OBJECTIVE As compensation transitions from a fee-for-service to pay-for-performance healthcare model, providers must prioritize patient-centered experiences. Here, the authors’ primary aim was to identify predictors of patient dissatisfaction at 1 and 2 years after lumbar surgery. METHODS The Michigan Spine Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MSSIC) was queried for all lumbar operations at the 1- and 2-year follow-ups. Predictors of patients’ postoperative contentment were identified per the North American Spine Surgery (NASS) Patient Satisfaction Index, wherein satisfied patients were assigned a score of 1 (“the treatment met my expectations”) or 2 (“I did not improve as much as I had hoped, but I would undergo the same treatment for the same outcome”) and unsatisfied patients were assigned a score of 3 (“I did not improve as much as I had hoped, and I would not undergo the same treatment for the same outcome”) or 4 (“I am the same or worse than before treatment”). Multivariable Poisson generalized estimating equation models were used to report adjusted risk ratios (RR adj ). RESULTS Among 5390 patients with a 1-year follow-up, 22% reported dissatisfaction postoperatively. Dissatisfaction was predicted by higher body mass index (RR adj =1.07, p < 0.001), African American race compared to white (RR adj = 1.51, p < 0.001), education level less than high school graduation compared to a high school diploma or equivalent (RR adj = 1.25, p = 0.008), smoking (RR adj = 1.34, p < 0.001), daily preoperative opioid use > 6 months (RR adj = 1.22, p < 0.001), depression (RR adj = 1.31, p < 0.001), symptom duration > 1 year (RR adj = 1.32, p < 0.001), previous spine surgery (RR adj = 1.32, p < 0.001), and higher baseline numeric rating scale (NRS)–back pain score (RR adj = 1.04, p = 0.002). Conversely, an education level higher than high school graduation, independent ambulation (RR adj = 0.90, p = 0.039), higher baseline NRS–leg pain score (RR adj = 0.97, p = 0.013), and fusion surgery (RR adj = 0.88, p = 0.014) decreased dissatisfaction. Among 2776 patients with a 2-year follow-up, 22% reported dissatisfaction postoperatively. Dissatisfaction was predicted by a non-white race, current smoking (RR adj = 1.26, p = 0.004), depression (RR adj = 1.34, p < 0.001), symptom duration > 1 year (RR adj = 1.47, p < 0.001), previous spine surgery (RR adj = 1.28, p < 0.001), and higher baseline NRS–back pain score (RR adj = 1.06, p = 0.003). Conversely, at least some college education (RR adj = 0.87, p = 0.035) decreased the risk of dissatisfaction. CONCLUSIONS Both comorbid conditions and socioeconomic circumstances must be considered in counseling patients on postoperative expectations. After race, symptom duration was the strongest predictor of dissatisfaction; thus, patient-centered measures must be prioritized. These findings should serve as a tool for surgeons to identify at-risk populations that may need more attention regarding effective communication and additional preoperative counseling to address potential barriers unique to their situation.

OBJECTIVEAggressive sacral tumors often require en bloc resection and lumbopelvic reconstruction. Instrumentation failure and pseudarthrosis remain a clinical concern to be addressed. The objective in this study was to compare the biomechanical stability of 3 distinct techniques for sacral reconstruction in vitro.METHODSIn a human cadaveric model study, 8 intact human lumbopelvic specimens (L2–pelvis) were tested for flexion-extension range of motion (ROM), lateral bending, and axial rotation with a custom-designed 6-df spine simulator as well as axial compression stiffness with the MTS 858 Bionix Test System. Biomechanical testing followed this sequence: 1) intact spine; 2) sacrectomy (no testing); 3) Model 1 (L3–5 transpedicular instrumentation plus spinal rods anchored to iliac screws); 4) Model 2 (addition of transiliac rod); and 5) Model 3 (removal of transiliac rod; addition of 2 spinal rods and 2 S-2 screws). Range of motion was measured at L4–5, L5–S1/cross-link, L5–right ilium, and L5–left ilium.RESULTSFlexion-extension ROM of the intact specimen at L4–5 (6.34° ± 2.57°) was significantly greater than in Model 1 (1.54° ± 0.94°), Model 2 (1.51° ± 1.01°), and Model 3 (0.72° ± 0.62°) (p < 0.001). Flexion-extension at both the L5–right ilium (2.95° ± 1.27°) and the L5–left ilium (2.87° ± 1.40°) for Model 3 was significantly less than the other 3 cohorts at the same level (p = 0.005 and p = 0.012, respectively). Compared with the intact condition, all 3 reconstruction groups statistically significantly decreased lateral bending ROM at all measured points. Axial rotation ROM at L4–5 for Model 1 (2.01° ± 1.39°), Model 2 (2.00° ± 1.52°), and Model 3 (1.15° ± 0.80°) was significantly lower than the intact condition (5.02° ± 2.90°) (p < 0.001). Moreover, axial rotation for the intact condition and Model 3 at L5–right ilium (2.64° ± 1.36° and 2.93° ± 1.68°, respectively) and L5–left ilium (2.58° ± 1.43° and 2.93° ± 1.71°, respectively) was significantly lower than for Model 1 and Model 2 at L5–right ilium (5.14° ± 2.48° and 4.95° ± 2.45°, respectively) (p = 0.036) and L5–left ilium (5.19° ± 2.34° and 4.99° ± 2.31°) (p = 0.022). Last, results of the axial compression testing at all measured points were not statistically different among reconstructions.CONCLUSIONSThe addition of a transverse bar in Model 2 offered no biomechanical advantage. Although the implementation of 4 iliac screws and 4 rods conferred a definitive kinematic advantage in Model 3, that model was associated with significantly restricted lumbopelvic ROM.