Haid, Regis W.

OBJECTIVE Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) have become the standard means to measure surgical outcomes. Insurers and policy makers are also increasingly utilizing PROs to assess the value of care and measure different aspects of a patient’s condition. For cervical myelopathy, it is currently unclear which outcome measure best reflects patient satisfaction. In this investigation, the authors evaluated patients treated for cervical myelopathy to determine which outcome questionnaires best correlate with patient satisfaction. METHODS The Quality Outcomes Database (QOD), a prospectively collected multi-institutional database, was used to retrospectively analyze patients undergoing surgery for cervical myelopathy. The North American Spine Society (NASS) satisfaction index, Neck Disability Index (NDI), numeric rating scales for neck pain (NP-NRS) and arm pain (AP-NRS), EQ-5D, and modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association (mJOA) scale were evaluated. RESULTS The analysis included 1141 patients diagnosed with myelopathy, of whom 1099 had an NASS satisfaction index recorded at any of the follow-up time points. Concomitant radiculopathy was an indication for surgery in 368 (33.5%) patients, and severe neck pain (NP-NRS ≥ 7) was present in 471 (42.8%) patients. At the 3-month follow-up, NASS patient satisfaction index scores were positively correlated with scores for the NP-NRS (r = 0.30), AP-NRS (r = 0.32), and NDI (r = 0.36) and negatively correlated with EQ-5D (r = −0.38) and mJOA (r = −0.29) scores (all p < 0.001). At the 12-month follow-up, scores for the NASS index were positively correlated with scores for the NP-NRS (r = 0.44), AP-NRS (r = 0.38), and NDI (r = 0.46) and negatively correlated with scores for the EQ-5D (r = −0.40) and mJOA (r = −0.36) (all p < 0.001). At the 24-month follow-up, NASS index scores were positively correlated with NP-NRS (r = 0.49), AP-NRS (r = 0.36), and NDI (r = 0.49) scores and negatively correlated with EQ-5D (r = −0.44) and mJOA (r = −0.38) scores (all p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS Neck pain was highly prevalent in patients with myelopathy. Notably, improvement in neck pain–associated disability rather than improvement in myelopathy was the most prominent PRO factor for patients. This finding may reflect greater patient concern for active pain symptoms than for neurological symptoms caused by myelopathy. As commercial payers begin to examine novel remuneration strategies for surgical interventions, thoughtful analysis of PRO measurements will have increasing relevance.

OBJECTIVE Return to work (RTW) is an important surgical outcome for patients who are employed, yet a significant number of patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) who are employed undergo cervical spine surgery and fail to RTW. In this study, the authors investigated factors associated with failure to RTW in the CSM population who underwent cervical spine surgery and who were considered to have a good surgical outcome yet failed to RTW. METHODS This study retrospectively analyzed prospectively collected data from the cervical myelopathy module of a national spine registry, the Quality Outcomes Database. The CSM data set of the Quality Outcomes Database was queried for patients who were employed at the time of surgery and planned to RTW postoperatively. Distinct multivariable logistic regression models were fitted with 3-month RTW as an outcome for the overall population to identify risk factors for failure to RTW. Good outcomes were defined as patients who had no adverse events (readmissions or complications), who had achieved 30% improvement in Neck Disability Index score, and who were satisfied (North American Spine Society satisfaction score of 1 or 2) at 3 months postsurgery. RESULTS Of the 409 patients who underwent surgery, 80% (n = 327) did RTW at 3 months after surgery. At 3 months, 56.9% of patients met the criteria for a good surgical outcome, and patients with a good outcome were more likely to RTW (88.1% vs 69.2%, p < 0.01). Of patients with a good outcome, 11.9% failed to RTW at 3 months. Risk factors for failing to RTW despite a good outcome included preoperative short-term disability or leave status (OR 3.03 [95% CI 1.66–7.90], p = 0.02); a higher baseline Neck Disability Index score (OR 1.41 [95% CI 1.09–1.84], p < 0.01); and higher neck pain score at 3 months postoperatively (OR 0.81 [95% CI 0.66–0.99], p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS Most patients with CSM who undergo spine surgery reenter the workforce within 3 months from surgery, with RTW rates being higher among patients who experience good outcomes. Among patients with good outcomes who were employed, failure to RTW was associated with being on preoperative short-term disability or leave status prior to surgery as well as higher neck pain scores at baseline and at 3 months postoperatively.

OBJECTIVE Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) has been used to treat degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis and is associated with expedited recovery, reduced operative blood loss, and shorter hospitalizations compared to those with traditional open TLIF. However, the impact of MI-TLIF on long-term patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is less clear. Here, the authors compare the outcomes of MI-TLIF to those of traditional open TLIF for grade I degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis at 60 months postoperatively. METHODS The authors utilized the prospective Quality Outcomes Database registry and queried for patients with grade I degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis who had undergone single-segment surgery via an MI or open TLIF method. PROs were compared 60 months postoperatively. The primary outcome was the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). The secondary outcomes included the numeric rating scale (NRS) for back pain (NRS-BP), NRS for leg pain (NRS-LP), EQ-5D, North American Spine Society (NASS) satisfaction, and cumulative reoperation rate. Multivariable models were constructed to assess the impact of MI-TLIF on PROs, adjusting for variables reaching p < 0.20 on univariable analyses and respective baseline PRO values. RESULTS The study included 297 patients, 72 (24.2%) of whom had undergone MI-TLIF and 225 (75.8%) of whom had undergone open TLIF. The 60-month follow-up rates were similar for the two cohorts (86.1% vs 75.6%, respectively; p = 0.06). Patients did not differ significantly at baseline for ODI, NRS-BP, NRS-LP, or EQ-5D (p > 0.05 for all). Perioperatively, MI-TLIF was associated with less blood loss (108.8 ± 85.6 vs 299.6 ± 242.2 ml, p < 0.001) and longer operations (228.2 ± 111.5 vs 189.6 ± 66.5 minutes, p < 0.001) but had similar lengths of hospitalizations (MI-TLIF 2.9 ± 1.8 vs open TLIF 3.3 ± 1.6 days, p = 0.08). Discharge disposition to home or home health was similar (MI-TLIF 93.1% vs open TLIF 91.1%, p = 0.60). Both cohorts improved significantly from baseline for the 60-month ODI, NRS-BP, NRS-LP, and EQ-5D (p < 0.001 for all comparisons). In adjusted analyses, MI-TLIF, compared to open TLIF, was associated with similar 60-month ODI, ODI change, odds of reaching ODI minimum clinically important difference, NRS-BP, NRS-BP change, NRS-LP, NRS-LP change, EQ-5D, EQ-5D change, and NASS satisfaction (adjusted p > 0.05 for all). The 60-month reoperation rates did not differ significantly (MI-TLIF 5.6% vs open TLIF 11.6%, p = 0.14). CONCLUSIONS For symptomatic, single-level grade I degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis, MI-TLIF was associated with decreased blood loss perioperatively, but there was no difference in 60-month outcomes for disability, back pain, leg pain, quality of life, or satisfaction between MI and open TLIF. There was no difference in cumulative reoperation rates between the two procedures. These results suggest that in appropriately selected patients, either procedure may be employed depending on patient and surgeon preferences.

OBJECTIVE Prior studies have revealed that a body mass index (BMI) ≥ 30 is associated with worse outcomes following surgical intervention in grade 1 lumbar spondylolisthesis. Using a machine learning approach, this study aimed to leverage the prospective Quality Outcomes Database (QOD) to identify a BMI threshold for patients undergoing surgical intervention for grade 1 lumbar spondylolisthesis and thus reliably identify optimal surgical candidates among obese patients. METHODS Patients with grade 1 lumbar spondylolisthesis and preoperative BMI ≥ 30 from the prospectively collected QOD lumbar spondylolisthesis module were included in this study. A 12-month composite outcome was generated by performing principal components analysis and k-means clustering on four validated measures of surgical outcomes in patients with spondylolisthesis. Random forests were generated to determine the most important preoperative patient characteristics in predicting the composite outcome. Recursive partitioning was used to extract a BMI threshold associated with optimal outcomes. RESULTS The average BMI was 35.7, with 282 (46.4%) of the 608 patients from the QOD data set having a BMI ≥ 30. Principal components analysis revealed that the first principal component accounted for 99.2% of the variance in the four outcome measures. Two clusters were identified corresponding to patients with suboptimal outcomes (severe back pain, increased disability, impaired quality of life, and low satisfaction) and to those with optimal outcomes. Recursive partitioning established a BMI threshold of 37.5 after pruning via cross-validation. CONCLUSIONS In this multicenter study, the authors found that a BMI ≤ 37.5 was associated with improved patient outcomes following surgical intervention. These findings may help augment predictive analytics to deliver precision medicine and improve prehabilitation strategies.

BACKGROUND: The modified Japanese Orthopedic Association (mJOA) score is a widely used and validated metric for assessing severity of myelopathy. Its relationship to functional and quality-of-life outcomes after surgery has not been fully described. OBJECTIVE: To quantify the association of the mJOA with the Neck Disability Index (NDI) and EuroQol-5 Dimension (EQ-5D) after surgery for degenerative cervical myelopathy. METHODS: The cervical module of the prospectively enrolled Quality Outcomes Database was queried retrospectively for adult patients who underwent single-stage degenerative cervical myelopathy surgery. The mJOA score, NDI, and EQ-5D were assessed preoperatively and 3 and 12 months postoperatively. Improvement in mJOA was used as the independent variable in univariate and multivariable linear and logistic regression models. RESULTS: Across 14 centers, 1121 patients were identified, mean age 60.6 ± 11.8 years, and 52.5% male. Anterior-only operations were performed in 772 patients (68.9%). By univariate linear regression, improvements in mJOA were associated with improvements in NDI and EQ-5D at 3 and 12 months postoperatively (all P < .0001) and with improvements in the 10 NDI items individually. These findings were similar in multivariable regression incorporating potential confounders. The Pearson correlation coefficients for changes in mJOA with changes in NDI were −0.31 and −0.38 at 3 and 12 months postoperatively. The Pearson correlation coefficients for changes in mJOA with changes in EQ-5D were 0.29 and 0.34 at 3 and 12 months. CONCLUSION: Improvements in mJOA correlated weakly with improvements in NDI and EQ-5D, suggesting that changes in mJOA may not be a suitable proxy for functional and quality-of-life outcomes.

OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to determine whether multilevel anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) or posterior cervical laminectomy and fusion (PCLF) is superior for patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) and high preoperative neck pain. METHODS This was a retrospective study of prospectively collected data using the Quality Outcomes Database (QOD) CSM module. Patients who received a subaxial fusion of 3 or 4 segments and had a visual analog scale (VAS) neck pain score of 7 or greater at baseline were included. The 3-, 12-, and 24-month outcomes were compared for patients undergoing ACDF with those undergoing PCLF. RESULTS Overall, 1141 patients with CSM were included in the database. Of these, 495 (43.4%) presented with severe neck pain (VAS score > 6). After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, we compared 65 patients (54.6%) undergoing 3- and 4-level ACDF and 54 patients (45.4%) undergoing 3- and 4-level PCLF. Patients undergoing ACDF had worse Neck Disability Index scores at baseline (52.5 ± 15.9 vs 45.9 ± 16.8, p = 0.03) but similar neck pain (p > 0.05). Otherwise, the groups were well matched for the remaining baseline patient-reported outcomes. The rates of 24-month follow-up for ACDF and PCLF were similar (86.2% and 83.3%, respectively). At the 24-month follow-up, both groups demonstrated mean improvements in all outcomes, including neck pain (p < 0.05). In multivariable analyses, there was no significant difference in the degree of neck pain change, rate of neck pain improvement, rate of pain-free achievement, and rate of reaching minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in neck pain between the two groups (adjusted p > 0.05). However, ACDF was associated with a higher 24-month modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association scale (mJOA) score (β = 1.5 [95% CI 0.5–2.6], adjusted p = 0.01), higher EQ-5D score (β = 0.1 [95% CI 0.01–0.2], adjusted p = 0.04), and higher likelihood for return to baseline activities (OR 1.2 [95% CI 1.1–1.4], adjusted p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS Severe neck pain is prevalent among patients undergoing surgery for CSM, affecting more than 40% of patients. Both ACDF and PCLF achieved comparable postoperative neck pain improvement 3, 12, and 24 months following 3- or 4-segment surgery for patients with CSM and severe neck pain. However, multilevel ACDF was associated with superior functional status, quality of life, and return to baseline activities at 24 months in multivariable adjusted analyses.

OBJECTIVE Spine surgery represents an ideal target for healthcare cost reduction efforts, with outpatient surgery resulting in significant cost savings. With an increased focus on value-based healthcare delivery, lumbar decompression surgery has been increasingly performed in the outpatient setting when appropriate. The aim of this study was to compare clinical and patient-reported outcomes following outpatient and inpatient lumbar decompression surgery. METHODS The Quality Outcomes Database (QOD) was queried for patients undergoing elective one- or two-level lumbar decompression (laminectomy or laminotomy with or without discectomy) for degenerative spine disease. Patients were grouped as outpatient if they had a length of stay (LOS) < 24 hours and as inpatient if they stayed in the hospital ≥ 24 hours. Patients with ≥ 72-hour stay were excluded from the comparative analysis to increase baseline comparability between the two groups. To create two highly homogeneous groups, optimal matching was performed at a 1:1 ratio between the two groups on 38 baseline variables, including demographics, comorbidities, symptoms, patient-reported scores, indications, and operative details. Outcomes of interest were readmissions and reoperations at 30 days and 3 months after surgery, overall satisfaction, and decrease in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), back pain, and leg pain at 3 months after surgery. Satisfaction was defined as a score of 1 or 2 in the North American Spine Society patient satisfaction index. Noninferiority of outpatient compared with inpatient surgery was defined as risk difference of < 1.5% at a one-sided 97.5% confidence interval. RESULTS A total of 18,689 eligible one- and two-level decompression surgeries were identified. The matched study cohorts consisted of 5016 patients in each group. Nonroutine discharge was slightly less common in the outpatient group (0.6% vs 0.3%, p = 0.01). The 30-day readmission rates were 4.4% and 4.3% for the outpatient and inpatient groups, respectively, while the 30-day reoperation rates were 1.4% and 1.5%. The 3-month readmission rates were 6.3% for both groups, and the 3-month reoperation rates were 3.1% for the outpatient cases and 2.9% for the inpatient cases. Overall satisfaction at 3 months was 88.8% for the outpatient group and 88.4% for the inpatient group. Noninferiority of outpatient surgery was documented for readmissions, reoperations, and patient-reported satisfaction from surgery. CONCLUSIONS Outpatient lumbar decompression surgery demonstrated slightly lower nonroutine discharge rates in comparison with inpatient surgery. Noninferiority in clinical outcomes at 30 days and 3 months after surgery was documented for outpatient compared with inpatient decompression surgery. Additionally, outpatient decompression surgery performed noninferiorly to inpatient surgery in achieving patient satisfaction from surgery.

OBJECTIVE With the expanding indications for and increasing popularity of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for lumbar spinal fusion, large-scale outcomes analysis to compare MIS approaches with open procedures is warranted. METHODS The authors queried the Quality Outcomes Database for patients who underwent elective lumbar fusion for degenerative spine disease. They performed optimal matching, at a 1:2 ratio between patients who underwent MIS and those who underwent open lumbar fusion, to create two highly homogeneous groups in terms of 33 baseline variables (including demographic characteristics, comorbidities, symptoms, patient-reported scores, indications, and operative details). The outcomes of interest were overall satisfaction, decrease in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and back and leg pain, as well as hospital length of stay (LOS), operative time, reoperations, and incidental durotomy rate. Satisfaction was defined as a score of 1 or 2 on the North American Spine Society scale. Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in ODI was defined as ≥ 30% decrease from baseline. Outcomes were assessed at the 3- and 12-month follow-up evaluations. RESULTS After the groups were matched, the MIS and open groups consisted of 1483 and 2966 patients, respectively. Patients who underwent MIS fusion had higher odds of satisfaction at 3 months (OR 1.4, p = 0.004); no difference was demonstrated at 12 months (OR 1.04, p = 0.67). Lumbar stenosis, single-level fusion, higher American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Classification System grade, and absence of spondylolisthesis were most prominently associated with higher odds of satisfaction with MIS compared with open surgery. Patients in the MIS group had slightly lower ODI scores at 3 months (mean difference 1.61, p = 0.006; MCID OR 1.14, p = 0.0495) and 12 months (mean difference 2.35, p < 0.001; MCID OR 1.29, p < 0.001). MIS was also associated with a greater decrease in leg and back pain at both follow-up time points. The two groups did not differ in operative time and incidental durotomy rate; however, LOS was shorter for the MIS group. Revision surgery at 12 months was less likely for patients who underwent MIS (4.1% vs 5.6%, p = 0.032). CONCLUSIONS In patients who underwent lumbar fusion for degenerative spinal disease, MIS was associated with higher odds of satisfaction at 3 months postoperatively. No difference was demonstrated at the 12-month follow-up. MIS maintained a small, yet consistent, superiority in decreasing ODI and back and leg pain, and MIS was associated with a lower reoperation rate.

OBJECTIVE Reduction of Meyerding grade is often performed during fusion for spondylolisthesis. Although radiographic appearance may improve, correlation with patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is rarely reported. In this study, the authors’ aim was to assess the impact of spondylolisthesis reduction on 24-month PRO measures after decompression and fusion surgery for Meyerding grade I degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. METHODS The Quality Outcomes Database (QOD) was queried for patients undergoing posterior lumbar fusion for spondylolisthesis with a minimum 24-month follow-up, and quantitative correlation between Meyerding slippage reduction and PROs was performed. Baseline and 24-month PROs, including the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), EQ-5D, Numeric Rating Scale (NRS)–back pain (NRS-BP), NRS-leg pain (NRS-LP), and satisfaction (North American Spine Society patient satisfaction questionnaire) scores were noted. Multivariable regression models were fitted for 24-month PROs and complications after adjusting for an array of preoperative and surgical variables. Data were analyzed for magnitude of slippage reduction and correlated with PROs. Patients were divided into two groups: < 3 mm reduction and ≥ 3 mm reduction. RESULTS Of 608 patients from 12 participating sites, 206 patients with complete data were identified in the QOD and included in this study. Baseline patient demographics, comorbidities, and clinical characteristics were similarly distributed between the cohorts except for depression, listhesis magnitude, and the proportion with dynamic listhesis (which were accounted for in the multivariable analysis). One hundred four (50.5%) patients underwent lumbar decompression and fusion with slippage reduction ≥ 3 mm (mean 5.19, range 3 to 11), and 102 (49.5%) patients underwent lumbar decompression and fusion with slippage reduction < 3 mm (mean 0.41, range 2 to −2). Patients in both groups (slippage reduction ≥ 3 mm, and slippage reduction < 3 mm) reported significant improvement in all primary patient reported outcomes (all p < 0.001). There was no significant difference with regard to the PROs between patients with or without intraoperative reduction of listhesis on univariate and multivariable analyses (ODI, EQ-5D, NRS-BP, NRS-LP, or satisfaction). There was no significant difference in complications between cohorts. CONCLUSIONS Significant improvement was found in terms of all PROs in patients undergoing decompression and fusion for lumbar spondylolisthesis. There was no correlation with clinical outcomes and magnitude of Meyerding slippage reduction.