Sebastian, Arjun S.

The management of thoracolumbar burst fractures is controversial with no universally accepted treatment algorithm. Several classification and scoring systems have been developed to assist in surgical decision-making. The most widely accepted are the Thoracolumbar Injury Classification and Severity Score (TLICS) and AOSpine Thoracolumbar Injury Classification Score (TL AOSIS) with both systems designed to provide a simple objective scoring criteria to guide the surgical or nonsurgical management of complex injury patterns. When used in the evaluation and treatment of thoracolumbar burst fractures, both of these systems result in safe and consistent patient care. However, there are important differences between the 2 systems, specifically in the evaluation of the complete burst fractures (AOSIS A4) and patients with transient neurological deficits (AOSIS N1). In these circumstances, the AOSpine system may more accurately capture and characterize injury severity, providing the most refined guidance for optimal treatment. With respect to surgical approach, these systems provide a framework for decision-making based on patient neurology and the status of the posterior tension band. Here we propose an operative treatment algorithm based on these fracture characteristics as well as the level of injury.

Study Design: Retrospective cohort study. Objectives: Studies in the lumbar spine suggest a correlation between sarcopenia and worse patient outcomes. The purpose of this study was to determine whether paraspinal Goutalier grade of fat degeneration is associated with patient-reported outcomes in patients undergoing anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). Methods: We performed a retrospective review of a prospective cohort of patients undergoing 1- to 3-level ACDF at a single institution between the years 2011-2014. We utilized preoperative magnetic resonance images to classify patients into Goutalier grades. Patient-reported outcomes, including Neck Disability Index (NDI), RAND score, and EQ-5D score were collected and analyzed according to patients’ Goutalier grade. Results: We identified 69 patients for inclusion. A total of 29 patients were classified as Goutalier 0-1 (group 1), 29 were Goutalier 1.5-2 (group 2), and 11 were Goutalier 2.5-4.0 (group 3). All Goutalier groups experienced significant improvement in all 3 outcome scores. Average postoperative NDI scores were 25.3 in group 1, 13.9 in group 2, and 25.1 in group 3 ( P = .02). The percentage of patients in each group reporting worse disability after surgery was 17.2%, 3.3%, and 9.1%, respectively ( P = .05). No statistically significant difference was seen between groups in postoperative EQ-5D ( P = .07) or RAND scores ( P > .05). Conclusions: The present study is the first to assess the association between cervical paraspinal muscle Goutalier grade and patient-reported outcomes following ACDF. Based on our study, patients with worse cervical paraspinal degeneration may benefit from improved symptom relief in comparison to patients with a lesser degree of degeneration undergoing ACDF.

Mini We compared the sensitivity and specificity of peri-implant tissue culture to the vortexing–sonication technique for the diagnosis of spinal implant infection (SII). Lower thresholds of sonicate fluid culture positivity showed increased sensitivity with maintained specificity. We recommend a threshold of 20 CFU/10 mL for sonicate culture positivity for the diagnosis of SII. Study Design. This is a retrospective study comparing the diagnosis of spinal implant infection (SII) by peri-implant tissue culture to vortexing–sonication of retrieved spinal implants. Objective. We hypothesized that vortexing–sonication would be more sensitive than peri-implant tissue culture. Summary of Background Data. We previously showed implant vortexing–sonication followed by culture to be more sensitive than standard peri-implant tissue culture for diagnosing of SII. In this follow-up study, we analyzed the largest sample size available in the literature to compare these two culture methods and evaluated thresholds for positivity for sonicate fluid for SII diagnosis. Methods. We compared peri-implant tissue culture to the vortexing–sonication technique which samples bacterial biofilm on the surface of retrieved spinal implants. We evaluated different thresholds for sonicate fluid positivity and assessed the sensitivity and specificity of the two culture methods for the diagnosis of SII. Results. A total of 152 patients were studied. With more than 100 colony forming units (CFU)/10 mL as a threshold for sonicate fluid culture positivity, there were 46 patients with SII. The sensitivities of peri-implant tissue and sonicate fluid culture were 65.2% and 79.6%; the specificities were 88.7% and 93.4%, respectively. With more than 50 CFU/10 mL as a threshold, there were 50 patients with SII. The sensitivities of peri-implant tissue and sonicate fluid culture were 68.0% and 76.0%; the specificities were 92.2% for both methods. Finally, with more than or equal to 20 CFU/10 mL as a threshold, there were 52 patients with SII. The sensitivities of peri-implant tissue and sonicate fluid culture were 69.2% and 82.7%; the specificities were 94.0% and 92.0%, respectively. Conclusion. Implant sonication followed by culture is a sensitive and specific method for the diagnosis of SII. Lower thresholds for defining sonicate fluid culture positivity allow for increased sensitivity with a minimal decrease in specificity, enhancing the clinical utility of implant sonication. Level of Evidence: 4

Study Design: This was a retrospective cohort study. Objectives: When anterior cervical osteophytes become large enough, they may cause dysphagia. There is a paucity of work examining outcomes and complications of anterior cervical osteophyte resection for dysphagia. Methods: Retrospective review identified 19 patients who underwent anterior cervical osteophyte resection for a diagnosis of dysphagia. The mean age was 71 years and follow-up, 4.7 years. The most common level operated on was C3-C4 (13, 69%). Results: Following anterior cervical osteophyte resection, 79% of patients had improvement in dysphagia. Five patients underwent cervical fusion; there were no episodes of delayed or iatrogenic instability requiring fusion. Fusion patients were younger (64 vs 71 years, P = .05) and had longer operative times (315 vs 121 minutes, P = .01). Age of 75 years or less trended toward improvement in dysphagia ( P = .09; OR = 18.8; 95% CI 0.7-478.0), whereas severe dysphagia trended toward increased complications ( P = .07; OR = 11.3; 95% CI = 0.8-158.5). Body mass index, use of an exposure surgeon, diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis diagnosis, surgery at 3 or more levels, prior neck surgery, and fusion were not predictive of improvement or complication. Conclusions: Anterior cervical osteophyte resection improves swallowing function in the majority of patients with symptomatic osteophytes. Spinal fusion can be added to address stenosis and other underlying cervical disease and help prevent osteophyte recurrence, whereas intraoperative navigation can be used to ensure complete osteophyte resection without breaching the cortex or entering the disc space. Because of the relatively high complication rate, patients should undergo thorough multidisciplinary workup with swallow evaluation to confirm that anterior cervical osteophytes are the primary cause of dysphagia prior to surgery.

Study Design: Retrospective, single institution, multisurgeon case control series. Objective: To determine whether there are differences in reoperation rates or outcomes for patients undergoing 2-level posterolateral fusion (PLF) augmented by a transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) at only one of the levels or at both. Methods: A total of 416 patients were identified who underwent 2-level PLF with a TLIF at either one of those levels (n = 183) or at both (n = 233) with greater than 1-year follow-up. Demographic, surgical, radiographic, and clinical data was reviewed for each patient. These included age, sex, race, body mass index, smoking status, Charleston Comorbidity Index, operative time, estimated blood loss, length of stay, and patient-reported outcome measures. Results: Each cohort underwent 24 reoperations. Although the number of overall reoperations was not significantly different ( P > .05), among the reoperation types, there were significantly more reoperations for adjacent segment disease in the 2-level group compared to the 1-level group (19 vs 12, P = .04). There was no difference in reoperation for pseudarthrosis between the groups ( P > .05). Although both groups experienced significant improvements in Oswestry Disability Index ( P < .001) and Short Form–12 health questionnaire ( P < .001), there were no differences between improvements for 1- versus 2-level cohorts. Conclusions: For patients undergoing 2-level PLF in the setting of a TLIF, using a TLIF at one versus both levels does not seem to influence reoperation rates or outcomes. However, reoperation rates for adjacent segment disease are increased in the setting of a 2-level PLF augmented by a 2-level TLIF.

OBJECTIVEThe authors sought to assess whether Hounsfield units (HU) increase following teriparatide treatment and to compare HU increases with changes in bone mineral density (BMD) as measured by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA).METHODSA retrospective chart review was performed from 1997 to 2018 across all campuses at our institution. The authors identified patients who had been treated with at least 6 months of teriparatide and compared HU and BMD as measured on DEXA scans before and after treatment.RESULTSFifty-two patients were identified for analysis (46 women and 6 men, average age 67 years) who underwent an average of 20.9 ± 6.5 months of teriparatide therapy. The mean ± standard deviation HU increase throughout the lumbar spine (L1–4) was from 109.8 ± 53 to 133.9 ± 61 HU (+22%, 95% CI 1.2–46, p value = 0.039). Based on DEXA results, lumbar spine BMD increased from 0.85 to 0.93 g/cm2 (+9%, p value = 0.044). Lumbar spine T-scores improved from −2.4 ± 1.5 to −1.7 ± 1.5 (p value = 0.03). Average femoral neck T-scores improved from −2.5 ± 1.1 to −2.3 ± 1.0 (p value = 0.31).CONCLUSIONSTeriparatide treatment increased both HU and BMD on DEXA in the lumbar spine, without a change in femoral BMD. The 22% improvement in HU surpassed the 9% improvement determined with DEXA. These results support some surgeons’ subjective sense that intraoperative bone quality following teriparatide treatment is better than indicated by DEXA results. To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study demonstrating an increase in HU with teriparatide treatment.

Abstract BACKGROUND Postoperative readmissions are a significant driver of variation in bundled care costs associated with cervical spine surgery. OBJECTIVE To determine the factors predicting the cost of readmission episodes following elective anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). METHODS We queried the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Nationwide Readmissions Database for patients undergoing elective ACDF during 2012 to 2015. Multivariable linear regression was performed to establish the factors associated with the cost of each 30-/90-d readmission episode. RESULTS A total of 139 877 and 113 418 patients met inclusion criteria for the evaluation of 30- and 90-d readmissions, respectively. Among these, the national rates of 30- and 90-d readmission after an elective ACDF were 3% and 6%, respectively. The median cost of a 30- and 90-d readmission episode was $6727 (IQR: $3844-$13 529) and $8507 (IQR: $4567-$17 460), respectively. Relative predictor importance analysis revealed that the number of procedures at index admission (IA), length of stay at IA, and time elapsed between index surgical admission and readmission were the top predictors of both 30- and 90-d readmission costs (all P < .001). Although cervical myelopathy accounted for only 3.6% of all 30-d readmissions, it accounted for the largest share (8%) of 30-d readmission costs. CONCLUSION In this analysis from a national all-payer database, we determined the factors associated with the cost of readmissions following elective ACDF. These results are important in assisting policymakers and payers with a better risk adjustment in bundled care payment systems and for surgeons in implementing readmission cost-reduction efforts.