Pennings, Jacquelyn S.

Background: Meniscal preservation has been demonstrated to contribute to long-term knee health and has been a successful intervention in isolation and in patients with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). The long-term results of meniscal repair in the setting of revision ACLR have yet to be documented. Purpose: To report the incidence of meniscal repair failures at the 6-year follow-up in a cohort of patients who underwent concurrent revision ACLR and primary meniscal repair. Study Design: Prospective cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: All revision ACLRs with concomitant primary meniscal repair cases from a multicenter group between 2006 and 2011 were selected. Six-year follow-up was obtained to determine whether any subsequent surgery had occurred since their initial revision ACLR. If so, operative reports were obtained, whenever possible, to verify pathological condition and treatment. Results: In total, 221 patients from 1234 revision ACLRs underwent concurrent primary meniscal repairs (18% of the cohort). There were 238 repairs performed: 173 medial and 65 lateral. The majority of these repairs (n = 181; 76%) were performed with an all-inside technique. Six-year surgical follow-up was obtained in 77% (171/221) of the cohort, or 189 of 238 (79%) of the repairs (136 medial, 53 lateral). The meniscal repair failure rate, defined as reoperation, was 16% (31/189) at 6 years. Of the 31 failures, 28 were medial (24 all-inside, 4 inside-out; 28/136 = 20.6% failure rate) and 3 were lateral (2 all-inside, 1 inside-out; 3/53 = 5.7% failure rate). Three medial failures were treated in conjunction with a subsequent repeat revision ACLR. Medial tears underwent reoperation for failure at a significantly higher rate than lateral tears (20.6% vs 5.7%; P = .01) and had a significantly shorter survival time compared with lateral tears ( P = .02). No difference was found between the failure and nonfailure groups when it came to tear type, tear length, repair technique utilized, suture/implant type, or number of sutures used between the 2 groups. Conclusion: Meniscal repair in the revision ACLR setting has a 16% failure rate at 6 years. Failure rates for medial tears (20.6%) were found to be higher than that for lateral tears (5.7%), which aligns with previous studies in both the revision and primary ACLR setting.

Background: Revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction has been documented to have inferior outcomes compared with primary ACL reconstruction. The reasons why remain unknown. Purpose: To determine whether surgical factors performed at the time of revision ACL reconstruction can influence a patient’s outcome at 6-year follow-up. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: Patients who underwent revision ACL reconstruction were identified and prospectively enrolled between 2006 and 2011. Data collected included baseline patient characteristics, surgical technique and pathology, and a series of validated patient-reported outcome instruments: Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective form, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and Marx activity rating score. Patients were followed up for 6 years and asked to complete the identical set of outcome instruments. Regression analysis was used to control for baseline patient characteristics and surgical variables to assess the surgical risk factors for clinical outcomes 6 years after surgery. Results: A total of 1234 patients were enrolled (716 men, 58%; median age, 26 years), and 6-year follow-up was obtained on 79% of patients (980/1234). Using an interference screw for femoral fixation compared with a cross-pin resulted in significantly better outcomes in 6-year IKDC scores (odds ratio [OR], 2.2; 95% CI, 1.2-3.9; P = .008) and KOOS sports/recreation and quality of life subscale scores (OR range, 2.2-2.7; 95% CI, 1.2-4.8; P < .01). Use of an interference screw compared with a cross-pin resulted in a 2.6 times less likely chance of having a subsequent surgery within 6 years. Use of an interference screw for tibial fixation compared with any combination of tibial fixation techniques resulted in significantly improved scores for IKDC (OR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.3-2.9; P = .001); KOOS pain, activities of daily living, and sports/recreation subscales (OR range, 1.5-1.6; 95% CI, 1.0-2.4; P < .05); and WOMAC pain and activities of daily living subscales (OR range, 1.5-1.8; 95% CI, 1.0-2.7; P < .05). Use of a transtibial surgical approach compared with an anteromedial portal approach resulted in significantly improved KOOS pain and quality of life subscale scores at 6 years (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.02-2.2; P≤ .04). Conclusion: There are surgical variables at the time of ACL revision that can modify clinical outcomes at 6 years. Opting for a transtibial surgical approach and choosing an interference screw for femoral and tibial fixation improved patients’ odds of having a significantly better 6-year clinical outcome in this cohort.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Although risk factors for unplanned readmission after cervical spine surgery have been widely reported, less is known about how readmission itself affects patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Using the Quality Outcomes Database registry of patients undergoing elective cervical spine surgery, we sought to (1) determine the impact of unplanned readmission on PROMs and (2) compare the effect of specific readmission reasons on PROMs. METHODS: An observational study was performed using a multi-institution, retrospective registry for patients undergoing cervical spine surgery. The occurrence of 90-day unplanned readmission classified into medical, surgical, pain only, and no readmissions was the exposure variable. Outcome variables included 12-month PROMs of Neck Disability Index (NDI), Numeric Rating Scale (NRS)-neck/arm pain, EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D), and patient dissatisfaction. Multivariable models predicting each PROM were built using readmission reasons controlling for demographics, clinical characteristics, and preoperative PROMs. RESULTS: Data from 13 355 patients undergoing elective cervical spine surgery (82% anterior approach and 18% posterior approach) were analyzed. Unplanned readmission within 90 days of surgery occurred in 3.8% patients, including medical (1.6%), surgical (1.8%), and pain (0.3%). Besides medical reasons, wound infection/dehiscence was the most common reason for unplanned readmission for the total cohort (0.5%), dysphagia in the anterior approach (0.6%), and wound infection/dehiscence in the posterior approach (1.5%). Based on multivariable regression, surgical readmission was significantly associated with worse 12-month NDI, NRS-neck pain, NRS-arm pain, EQ-5D, and higher odds of dissatisfaction. Pain readmissions were associated with worse 12-month NDI and NRS-neck pain scores, and worse dissatisfaction. For specific readmission reasons, pain, surgical site infection/wound dehiscence, hematoma/seroma, revision surgery, deep vein thrombosis, and pulmonary embolism were significantly associated with worsened 12-month PROMs. CONCLUSION: In patients undergoing elective cervical spine surgery, 90-day unplanned surgical and pain readmissions were associated with worse 12-month PROMs compared with patients with medical readmissions and no readmissions.

Background: Meniscal and chondral damage is common in the patient undergoing revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Purpose: To determine if meniscal and/or articular cartilage pathology at the time of revision ACL surgery significantly influences a patient’s outcome at 6-year follow-up. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Patients undergoing revision ACL reconstruction were prospectively enrolled between 2006 and 2011. Data collection included baseline demographics, surgical technique, pathology, treatment, and scores from 4 validated patient-reported outcome instruments: International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and Marx Activity Rating Scale. Patients were followed up at 6 years and asked to complete the identical set of outcome instruments. Regression analysis assessed the meniscal and articular cartilage pathology risk factors for clinical outcomes 6 years after revision ACL reconstruction. Results: An overall 1234 patients were enrolled (716 males, 58%; median age, 26 years). Surgeons reported the pathology at the time of revision surgery in the medial meniscus (45%), lateral meniscus (36%), medial femoral condyle (43%), lateral femoral condyle (29%), medial tibial plateau (11%), lateral tibial plateau (17%), patella (30%), and trochlea (21%). Six-year follow-up was obtained on 79% of the sample (980/1234). Meniscal pathology and articular cartilage pathology (medial femoral condyle, lateral femoral condyle, lateral tibial plateau, trochlea, and patella) were significant drivers of poorer patient-reported outcomes at 6 years (IKDC, KOOS, WOMAC, and Marx). The most consistent factors driving outcomes were having a medial meniscal excision (either before or at the time of revision surgery) and patellofemoral articular cartilage pathology. Six-year Marx activity levels were negatively affected by having either a repair/excision of the medial meniscus (odds ratio range, 1.45-1.72; P≤ .04) or grade 3-4 patellar chondrosis (odds ratio, 1.72; P = .04). Meniscal pathology occurring before the index revision surgery negatively affected scores on all KOOS subscales except for sports/recreation ( P < .05). Articular cartilage pathology significantly impaired all KOOS subscale scores ( P < .05). Lower baseline outcome scores, higher body mass index, being a smoker, and incurring subsequent surgery all significantly increased the odds of reporting poorer clinical outcomes at 6 years. Conclusion: Meniscal and chondral pathology at the time of revision ACL reconstruction has continued significant detrimental effects on patient-reported outcomes at 6 years after revision surgery.

Study Design. Retrospective review. Objective. The aim was to compare outcomes at 3 and 12 months for patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis treated with direct decompression (DD) versus indirect decompression (ID) techniques. Summary of Background Data. Debate persists regarding the optimal surgical strategy to treat lumbar spondylolisthesis. Novel techniques relying on ID have shown superior radiographic outcomes compared to DD, however, doubt remains regarding their effectiveness in achieving adequate decompression. Currently, there is a paucity of data comparing the clinical efficacy of DD to ID. Methods. The Quality Outcomes Database (QOD), a national, multicenter prospective spine registry, was queried for patients who underwent DD and ID between April 2013 and January 2019. Propensity scores for each treatment were estimated using logistic regression dependent on baseline covariates potentially associated with outcomes. The propensity scores were used to exclude nonsimilar patients. Multivariable regression analysis was performed with the treatment and covariate as independent variables and outcomes as dependent variables. Results. A total of 4163 patients were included in the DD group and 86 in the ID group. The ID group had significantly lower odds of having a longer hospital stay and for achieving 30% improvement in back and leg pain at 3 months. These trends were not statistically significant at 12 months. There were no differences in ED5D scores or Oswestry disability index 30% improvement scores at 3 or 12 months. ID patient had a significantly higher rate of undergoing a repeat operation at 3 months (4.9% vs. 1.5%, P =0.015). Conclusion. Our study suggests that both DD and ID for the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis result in similar clinical outcomes, with the exception that those treated with ID experienced a lower reduction in back and leg pain at 3 months and a higher 3-month reoperation rate. This data can provide surgeons with additional information when counseling patients on the pros and cons of ID versus DD surgery.

Background: Lytic or malpositioned tunnels may require bone grafting during revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (rACLR) surgery. Patient characteristics and effects of grafting on outcomes after rACLR are not well described. Purpose: To describe preoperative characteristics, intraoperative findings, and 2-year outcomes for patients with rACLR undergoing bone grafting procedures compared with patients with rACLR without grafting. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A total of 1234 patients who underwent rACLR were prospectively enrolled between 2006 and 2011. Baseline revision and 2-year characteristics, surgical technique, pathology, treatment, and patient-reported outcome instruments (International Knee Documentation Committee [IKDC], Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score [KOOS], Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, and Marx Activity Rating Scale [Marx]) were collected, as well as subsequent surgery information, if applicable. The chi-square and analysis of variance tests were used to compare group characteristics. Results: A total of 159 patients (13%) underwent tunnel grafting—64 (5%) patients underwent 1-stage and 95 (8%) underwent 2-stage grafting. Grafting was isolated to the femur in 31 (2.5%) patients, the tibia in 40 (3%) patients, and combined in 88 patients (7%). Baseline KOOS Quality of Life (QoL) and Marx activity scores were significantly lower in the 2-stage group compared with the no bone grafting group ( P≤ .001). Patients who required 2-stage grafting had more previous ACLRs ( P < .001) and were less likely to have received a bone–patellar tendon–bone or a soft tissue autograft at primary ACLR procedure ( P≤ .021) compared with the no bone grafting group. For current rACLR, patients undergoing either 1-stage or 2-stage bone grafting were more likely to receive a bone–patellar tendon–bone allograft ( P≤ .008) and less likely to receive a soft tissue autograft ( P≤ .003) compared with the no bone grafting group. At 2-year follow-up of 1052 (85%) patients, we found inferior outcomes in the 2-stage bone grafting group (IKDC score = 68; KOOS QoL score = 44; KOOS Sport/Recreation score = 65; and Marx activity score = 3) compared with the no bone grafting group (IKDC score = 77; KOOS QoL score = 63; KOOS Sport/Recreation score = 75; and Marx activity score = 7) ( P≤ .01). The 1-stage bone graft group did not significantly differ compared with the no bone grafting group. Conclusion: Tunnel bone grafting was performed in 13% of our rACLR cohort, with 8% undergoing 2-stage surgery. Patients treated with 2-stage grafting had inferior baseline and 2-year patient-reported outcomes and activity levels compared with patients not undergoing bone grafting. Patients treated with 1-stage grafting had similar baseline and 2-year patient-reported outcomes and activity levels compared with patients not undergoing bone grafting.

Study Design. Retrospective analysis on prospectively collected data. Objective. To determine the effectiveness of elective spine surgery in patients with Parkinson disease (PD). Background Context. PD has become increasingly prevalent in an aging population. While surgical treatment for degenerative spine pathology is often required in this population, previous literature has provided mixed results regarding its effectiveness. Methods. Data from the Quality Outcomes Database (QOD) was queried between April 2013 and January 2019. Three surgical groups were identified: (1) elective lumbar surgery, (2) elective cervical surgery for myelopathy, (3) elective cervical surgery for radiculopathy. Patients without PD were propensity matched against patients with PD in a 5:1 ratio without replacement based on American Society of Anesthesiology grade, arthrodesis, surgical approach, number of operated levels, age, and baseline Oswestry Disability Index, Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) extremity pain, NRS back pain, and EuroQol 5-Dimensions (EQ-5D). The mean difference was calculated for continuous outcomes (Oswestry Disability Index, NRS leg pain, NRS back pain, and EQ-5D at 3 and 12 mo after surgery) and the risk difference was calculated for binary outcomes (patient satisfaction, complications, readmission, reoperation, and mortality). Results. For the lumbar analysis, PD patients had a higher rate of reoperation at 12 months (risk difference=0.057, P=0.015) and lower mean EQ-5D score at 12 months (mean difference=−0.053, P=0.005) when compared with patients without PD. For the cervical myelopathy cohort, PD patients had lower NRS neck pain scores at 3 months (mean difference=−0.829, P=0.005) and lower patient satisfaction at 3 months (risk difference=−0.262, P=0.041) compared with patients without PD. For the cervical radiculopathy cohort, PD patients demonstrated a lower readmission rate at 3 months (risk difference=−0.045, P=0.014) compared with patients without PD. Conclusion. For the matched analysis, in general, patients with and without PD had similar patient-reported outcomes and complication, readmission, and reoperation rates. These results demonstrate that a diagnosis of PD alone should not represent a major contraindication to elective spine surgery.

Study Design: This was an observational study. Objectives: This study aims to determine the correlation between patient-reported outcomes (PROs) pulled from a national spine registry and physician ratings from physician review websites (PRWs). Summary of Background Data: PRWs are frequently utilized by patients to make health care decisions; however, many PRWs appear to incorporate subjective experiences unrelated to a surgeon’s clinical performance into ratings. As such, their utility as a health care decision-making tool remains unclear. Materials and Methods: This study evaluated 8834 patients from the Quality Outcomes Database (QOD) who underwent 1-level elective lumbar spine surgery. The lumbar module of QOD was queried to rank 124 surgeons using PROs (Oswestry Disability Index, EuroQOL, Numerical Rating Scale—back/leg pain, and patient satisfaction). The QOD PRO-ranking system was compared against PRWs including Healthgrades, Vitals, WebMD, and Google. The Spearman correlation coefficients, Kruskal-Wallis tests, and multiple linear regression models were used for statistical comparison. The primary outcome was the correlation between PRW scores and PROs. Results: Surgeon PRO-derived ranking showed high intercorrelational congruence with coefficients between the 3 PROs (Oswestry Disability Index, EuroQOL, Numerical Rating Scale back/leg) ranging between 0.70 and 0.88. Low correlations were observed between PRO-derived rankings and PRWs, ranging from 0.23 to 0.37. Healthgrades performed most similarly to PRO-derived rankings, correlating best with patient satisfaction, though the correlation was low (ρ=0.37). Conclusions: While PRWs are often used to evaluate surgeon competency, these results demonstrate they poorly correlate with a surgeon’s clinical ability measured by PROs. PRWs should be used with caution when making health care decisions by patients, payers, and administrators. Level of Evidence: Level III.

OBJECTIVE Neurosurgeons generate an enormous amount of data daily. Within these data lie rigorous, valid, and reproducible evidence. Such evidence can facilitate healthcare reform and improve quality of care. To measure the quality of care provided objectively, evaluating the safety and efficacy of clinical activities should occur in real time. Registries must be constructed and collected data analyzed with the precision akin to that of randomized clinical trials to accomplish this goal. METHODS The Quality Outcomes Database (QOD) Tumor Registry was launched in February 2019 with 8 sites in its initial 1-year pilot phase. The Tumor Registry was proposed by the AANS/CNS Tumor Section and approved by the QOD Scientific Committee in the fall of 2018. The initial pilot phase aimed to assess the feasibility of collecting outcomes data from 8 academic practices across the United States; these outcomes included length of stay, discharge disposition, and inpatient complications. RESULTS As of November 2019, 923 eligible patients have been entered, with the following subsets: intracranial metastasis (17.3%, n = 160), high-grade glioma (18.5%, n = 171), low-grade glioma (6%, n = 55), meningioma (20%, n = 184), pituitary tumor (14.3%, n = 132), and other intracranial tumor (24%, n = 221). CONCLUSIONS The authors have demonstrated here, as a pilot study, the feasibility of documenting demographic, clinical, operative, and patient-reported outcome characteristics longitudinally for 6 common intracranial tumor types.

Background: Although graft choice may be limited in the revision setting based on previously used grafts, most surgeons believe that graft choice for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is an important factor related to outcome. Hypothesis: In the ACL revision setting, there would be no difference between autograft and allograft in rerupture rate and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) at 6-year follow-up. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: Patients who had revision surgery were identified and prospectively enrolled in this cohort study by 83 surgeons over 52 sites. Data collected included baseline characteristics, surgical technique and pathology, and a series of validated PRO measures. Patients were followed up at 6 years and asked to complete the identical set of PRO instruments. Incidence of additional surgery and reoperation because of graft failure were also recorded. Multivariable regression models were used to determine the predictors (risk factors) of PROs, graft rerupture, and reoperation at 6 years after revision surgery. Results: A total of 1234 patients including 716 (58%) men were enrolled. A total of 325 (26%) underwent revision using a bone-patellar tendon-bone (BTB) autograft; 251 (20%), soft tissue autograft; 289 (23%), BTB allograft; 302 (25%), soft tissue allograft; and 67 (5%), other graft. Questionnaires and telephone follow-up for subsequent surgery information were obtained for 809 (66%) patients, while telephone follow-up was only obtained for an additional 128 patients for the total follow-up on 949 (77%) patients. Graft choice was a significant predictor of 6-year Marx Activity Rating Scale scores ( P = .024). Specifically, patients who received a BTB autograft for revision reconstruction had higher activity levels than did patients who received a BTB allograft (odds ratio [OR], 1.92; 95% CI, 1.25-2.94). Graft rerupture was reported in 5.8% (55/949) of patients by their 6-year follow-up: 3.5% (16/455) of patients with autografts and 8.4% (37/441) of patients with allografts. Use of a BTB autograft for revision resulted in patients being 4.2 times less likely to sustain a subsequent graft rupture than if a BTB allograft were utilized ( P = .011; 95% CI, 1.56-11.27). No significant differences were found in graft rerupture rates between BTB autograft and soft tissue autografts ( P = .87) or between BTB autografts and soft tissue allografts ( P = .36). Use of an autograft was found to be a significant predictor of having fewer reoperations within 6 years compared with using an allograft ( P = .010; OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.36-0.87). Conclusion: BTB and soft tissue autografts had a decreased risk in graft rerupture compared with BTB allografts. BTB autografts were associated with higher activity level than were BTB allografts at 6 years after revision reconstruction. Surgeons and patients should consider this information when choosing a graft for revision ACL reconstruction.