Kerezoudis, Panagiotis

Abstract BACKGROUND Use of large databases such as the American College of Surgeons-National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) has become increasingly common in neurosurgical research. OBJECTIVE To perform a critical appraisal and evaluation of the methodological reporting for studies in neurosurgical literature that utilize the ACS-NSQIP database. METHODS We queried Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PubMed databases for all neurosurgical studies utilizing the ACS-NSQIP. We assessed each study according to number of criteria fulfilled with respect to Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement, REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected Health Data (RECORD) Statement, and Journal of American Medical Association–Surgical Section (JAMA-Surgery) Checklist. A separate analysis was conducted among papers published in core and noncore journals in neurosurgery according to Bradford's law. RESULTS A total of 117 studies were included. Median (interquartile range [IQR]) scores for number of fulfilled criteria for STROBE Statement, RECORD Statement, and JAMA-Surgery Checklist were 20 (IQR:19-21), 9 (IQR:8-9), and 6 (IQR:5-6), respectively. For STROBE Statement, RECORD Statement, and JAMA-Surgery Checklist, item 9 (potential sources of bias), item 13 (supplemental information), and item 9 (missing data/sensitivity analysis) had the highest number of studies with no fulfillment among all studies (56, 68, 50%), respectively. When comparing core journals vs noncore journals, no significant difference was found (STROBE, P = .94; RECORD, P = .24; JAMA-Surgery checklist, P = .60). CONCLUSION While we observed an overall satisfactory reporting of methodology, most studies lacked mention of potential sources of bias, data cleaning methods, supplemental information, and external validity. Given the pervasive role of national databases and registries for research and health care policy, the surgical community needs to ensure the credibility and quality of such studies that ultimately aim to improve the value of surgical care delivery to patients.

OBJECTIVESpinal peripheral nerve sheath tumors (PNSTs) are a group of rare tumors originating from the nerve and its supporting structures. Standard surgical management typically entails laminectomy with or without facetectomy to gain adequate tumor exposure. Arthrodesis is occasionally performed to maintain spinal stability and mitigate the risk of postoperative deformity, pain, or neurological deficit. However, the factors associated with the need for instrumentation in addition to PNST resection in the same setting remain unclear.METHODSAn institutional tumor registry at a tertiary care center was queried for patients treated surgically for a primary diagnosis of spinal PNST between 2002 and 2016. An analysis focused on patients in whom a facetectomy was performed during the resection. The addition of arthrodesis at the index procedure comprised the primary outcome. The authors also recorded baseline demographics, tumor characteristics, and surgery-related variables. Logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with increased risk of fusion surgery.RESULTSA total of 163 patients were identified, of which 56 (32 had facetectomy with fusion, 24 had facetectomy alone) were analyzed. The median age was 48 years, and 50% of the cohort was female. Age, sex, and race, as well as tumor histology and size, were evenly distributed between patients who received facetectomy alone and those who had facetectomy and fusion. On univariate analysis, total versus subtotal facetectomy (OR 9.0, 95% CI 2.01–64.2; p = 0.009) and cervicothoracic versus other spinal region (OR 9.0, 95% CI 1.51–172.9; p = 0.048) were significantly associated with increased odds of performing immediate fusion. On multivariable analysis, only the effect of total facetectomy remained statistically significant (OR 6.75, 95% CI 1.47–48.8; p = 0.025).CONCLUSIONSThe authors found that total facetectomy and cervicothoracic involvement may be highly associated with the need for concomitant arthrodesis at the time of index surgery. These findings may help surgeons to determine the best surgical planning for patients with PNST.

Background: The Acoustic Neuroma Association (ANA) is a national, nonprofit organization, focused on the education and support of patients with vestibular schwannoma (VS). The aim of the present study is to characterize the profile of ANA survey respondents and compare them with non-ANA patients evaluated at a single tertiary academic referral center to investigate the potential influence of selection bias. Methods: A prospectively maintained VS quality-of-life (QOL) database, comprised of patients evaluated at the authors’ center and members of the ANA, was queried. Demographic variables, patient-reported symptoms and tumor characteristics, as well as patient-reported outcome scores were captured. Health-related QOL was evaluated using the disease-specific Penn Acoustic Neuroma QOL (PANQOL) questionnaire. Multivariable regression models were fitted for PANQOL domain and total scores as well as satisfaction with treatment adjusting for baseline demographics, symptoms, and PANQOL scores. Results: A total of 1,060 patients (802 [76%] ANA respondents) were analyzed. Overall, ANA patients were slightly younger (mean age: 59 vs 60 yr, p = 0.145), more likely to be women (72 vs 55%, p < 0.001), and had a larger tumor size (overall p < 0.001). Furthermore, a significantly higher proportion of ANA patients were more likely to undergo microsurgery (57 vs 21%) or radiation (21 vs 8%) and less likely to be managed with observation (16 vs 65%, overall p < 0.001). A significantly higher proportion of ANA patients reported hearing loss (95 vs 88%, p < 0.001), tinnitus (80 vs 73%, p = 0.034), dizziness (78 vs 64%, p < 0.001), headache (56 vs 45% p = 0.003), and facial paralysis (37 vs 12%, p < 0.001). On multivariable analysis, ANA respondents exhibited significantly lower PANQOL scores for hearing (OR: 0.47, 95% CI: 0.35–0.64, p < 0.001), balance (OR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.38–0.70, p < 0.001), pain (OR: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.46–0.86, p = 0.004), facial function (OR: 0.58, 95% CI: 0.42–0.80, p = 0.001), energy (OR: 0.44, 95% CI: 0.32–0.59, p < 0.001), anxiety (OR: 0.54, 95% CI: 0.40–0.74, p < 0.001), general (OR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.53–0.98, p = 0.03), and total QOL (OR: 0.40, 95% CI: 0.30–0.55, p < 0.001). No statistically significant difference was seen with regard to treatment satisfaction. To determine the true clinical relevance of these differences, the two groups were compared using the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for each domain. MCID is defined as the smallest difference in score in the domain of interest that patients perceive as important, either beneficial or harmful. The domains for hearing, balance, energy, anxiety, and total QOL reached their respective MCID thresholds, indicating that the ANA cohort has QOL scores that are clinically, perceptually worse for these domains compared to the non-ANA group. Conclusion: These data help delineate some of the inherent limitations and biases associated with survey studies incorporating data from national patient support organizations. The population profile of ANA survey respondents likely differs significantly from the greater population of patients with VS that may be encountered at a tertiary referral center.

OBJECTIVEThe AANS launched the Quality Outcomes Database (QOD), a prospective longitudinal registry that includes demographic, clinical, and patient-reported outcome (PRO) data to measure the safety and quality of spine surgery. Registry data offer “real-world” insights into the utility of spinal fusion and decompression surgery for lumbar spondylolisthesis. Using the QOD, the authors compared the initial 12-month outcome data for patients undergoing fusion and those undergoing laminectomy alone for grade 1 degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.METHODSData from 12 top enrolling sites were analyzed and 426 patients undergoing elective single-level spine surgery for degenerative grade 1 lumbar spondylolisthesis were found. Baseline, 3-month, and 12-month follow-up data were collected and compared, including baseline clinical characteristics, readmission rates, reoperation rates, and PROs. The PROs included Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), back and leg pain numeric rating scale (NRS) scores, and EuroQol–5 Dimensions health survey (EQ-5D) results.RESULTSA total of 342 (80.3%) patients underwent fusion, with the remaining 84 (19.7%) undergoing decompression alone. The fusion cohort was younger (60.7 vs 69.9 years, p < 0.001), had a higher mean body mass index (31.0 vs 28.4, p < 0.001), and had a greater proportion of patients with back pain as a major component of their initial presentation (88.0% vs 60.7%, p < 0.001). There were no differences in 12-month reoperation rate (4.4% vs 6.0%, p = 0.93) and 3-month readmission rates (3.5% vs 1.2%, p = 0.45). At 12 months, both cohorts improved significantly with regard to ODI, NRS back and leg pain, and EQ-5D (p < 0.001, all comparisons). In adjusted analysis, fusion procedures were associated with superior 12-month ODI (β −4.79, 95% CI −9.28 to −0.31; p = 0.04).CONCLUSIONSSurgery for grade 1 lumbar spondylolisthesis—regardless of treatment strategy—was associated with significant improvements in disability, back and leg pain, and quality of life at 12 months. When adjusting for covariates, fusion surgery was associated with superior ODI at 12 months. Although fusion procedures were associated with a lower rate of reoperation, there was no statistically significant difference at 12 months. Further study must be undertaken to assess the durability of either surgical strategy in longer-term follow-up.

OBJECTIVETranspsoas lateral interbody fusion is one of the lateral minimally invasive approaches for lumbar spine surgery. Most surgeons insert the interbody cage laterally and then insert pedicle or cortical screw and rod instrumentation posteriorly. However, standalone cages have also been used to avoid posterior instrumentation. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, the literature on comparison of the two approaches is sparse.METHODSThe authors performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the available literature on transpsoas lateral interbody fusion by an electronic search of the PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus databases using PRISMA guidelines. They compared patients undergoing transpsoas standalone fusion (TP) with those undergoing transpsoas fusion with posterior instrumentation (TPP).RESULTSA total of 28 studies with 1462 patients were included. Three hundred and seventy-four patients underwent TPP, and 956 patients underwent TP. The mean patient age ranged from 45.7 to 68 years in the TP group, and 50 to 67.7 years in the TPP group. The incidence of reoperation was found to be higher for TP (0.08, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.04–0.11) compared to TPP (0.03, 95% CI 0.01–0.06; p = 0.057). Similarly, the incidence of cage movement was found to be greater in TP (0.18, 95% CI 0.10–0.26) compared to TPP (0.03, 95% CI 0.00–0.05; p < 0.001). Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and visual analog scale (VAS) scores and postoperative transient deficits were found to be comparable between the two groups.CONCLUSIONSThese results appear to suggest that addition of posterior instrumentation to transpsoas fusion is associated with decreased reoperations and cage movements. The results of previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses should be reevaluated in light of these results, which seem to suggest that higher reoperation and subsidence rates may be due to the use of the standalone technique.

OBJECTIVE Back pain and neck pain are two of the most common causes of work loss due to disability, which poses an economic burden on society. Due to recent changes in healthcare policies, patient-centered outcomes including return to work have been increasingly prioritized by physicians and hospitals to optimize healthcare delivery. In this study, the authors used a national spine registry to identify clinical factors associated with return to work at 3 months among patients undergoing a cervical spine surgery. METHODS The authors queried the Quality Outcomes Database registry for information collected from April 2013 through March 2017 for preoperatively employed patients undergoing cervical spine surgery for degenerative spine disease. Covariates included demographic, clinical, and operative variables, and baseline patient-reported outcomes. Multiple imputations were used for missing values and multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to identify factors associated with higher odds of returning to work. Bootstrap resampling (200 iterations) was used to assess the validity of the model. A nomogram was constructed using the results of the multivariable model. RESULTS A total of 4689 patients were analyzed, of whom 82.2% (n = 3854) returned to work at 3 months postoperatively. Among previously employed and working patients, 89.3% (n = 3443) returned to work compared to 52.3% (n = 411) among those who were employed but not working (e.g., were on a leave) at the time of surgery (p < 0.001). On multivariable logistic regression the authors found that patients who were less likely to return to work were older (age > 56–65 years: OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.57–0.85, p < 0.001; age > 65 years: OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.43–0.97, p = 0.02); were employed but not working (OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.20–0.29, p < 0.001); were employed part time (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.42–0.76, p < 0.001); had a heavy-intensity (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.32–0.54, p < 0.001) or medium-intensity (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.46–0.76, p < 0.001) occupation compared to a sedentary occupation type; had workers’ compensation (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.28–0.53, p < 0.001); had a higher Neck Disability Index score at baseline (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.51–0.70, p = 0.017); were more likely to present with myelopathy (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.42–0.63, p < 0.001); and had more levels fused (3–5 levels: OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.35–0.61, p < 0.001). Using the multivariable analysis, the authors then constructed a nomogram to predict return to work, which was found to have an area under the curve of 0.812 and good validity. CONCLUSIONS Return to work is a crucial outcome that is being increasingly prioritized for employed patients undergoing spine surgery. The results from this study could help surgeons identify at-risk patients so that preoperative expectations could be discussed more comprehensively.

Abstract BACKGROUND Given recent differing findings following 2 randomized clinical trials on degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS) surgery, there is a need to better define how subsets of patients fare following surgery. OBJECTIVE To investigate the impact of obesity on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) following DLS surgery. METHODS A total of 12 high-enrolling sites were queried, and we found 797 patients undergoing surgery for grade 1 DLS. For univariate comparisons, patients were stratified by BMI ≥ 30 kg/m 2 (obese) and < 30 kg/m 2 (nonobese). Baseline, 3-mo, and 12-mo follow-up parameters were collected. PROs included the North American Spine Society satisfaction questionnaire, numeric rating scale (NRS) back pain, NRS leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and EuroQoL-5D (EQ-5D) Questionnaire. RESULTS We identified 382 obese (47.9%) and 415 nonobese patients (52.1%). At baseline, obese patients had worse NRS back pain, NRS leg pain, ODI, and EQ-5D scores ( P < .001, P = .01, P < .001, and P = .02, respectively). Both cohorts improved significantly for back and leg pain, ODI, and EQ-5D at 12 mo ( P < .001). At 12 mo, similar proportions of obese and nonobese patients responded that surgery met their expectations (62.6% vs 67.4%, P = .24). In multivariate analyses, BMI was independently associated with worse NRS leg pain and EQ-5D at 12 mo ( P = .01 and P < .01, respectively) despite adjusting for baseline differences. CONCLUSION Obesity is associated with inferior leg pain and quality of life—but similar back pain, disability, and satisfaction—12 mo postoperatively. However, obese patients achieve significant improvements in all PRO metrics at 12 mo.

Objectives Although vestibular schwannomas (VS) are known to cause cranial nerve deficits, cerebellar symptoms, and hydrocephalus, the role of these symptoms as the key driver of presentation from the patient's perspective has not been described. Our objective was to survey a large, retrospective VS cohort to document the patient-reported principal initial symptom, and self-reported tumor size, and to study trends in VS patient presentation. Methods Patients diagnosed with VS at our tertiary referral center and belonging to the Acoustic Neuroma Association (ANA) answered a questionnaire between 2015 and 2017. Demographic data, self-reported tumor size, and symptomatology were analyzed. Results 1,304 patients completed the questionnaire. Tumors were diagnosed from 1966 to 2017 at a mean 51.8 years (range: 8–86 years); 66% were female, and 1.1% had confirmed neurofibromatosis type 2 (NF2). Tumor size was reported using a 6-point scale: 0 to 1 cm (22.9%), 1 to 2 cm (28.7%), 2 to 3 cm (20.5%), 3 to 4 cm (10%), greater than 4 cm (7.2%), and unknown (10.6%). Hearing loss was the most common symptom that led to diagnosis (51.5%), followed by dizziness (17%), tinnitus (11.2%), and incidental diagnosis (10.2%); a fraction that has increased significantly in the last decade (p = 0.022). Larger tumors and NF2 were significantly associated with young age (p < 0.001). Conclusion Our large-scale questionnaire-driven review of 1,304 patients confirms that VS presentations are stereotypical, with most individuals recalling hearing loss, dizziness, or tinnitus as their chief complaint. Many tumors were incidentally diagnosed; an expanding population, attributable to increased access to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Large tumors were significantly more prevalent among younger patients at diagnosis, excluding NF2 patients, suggesting a more aggressive tumor biology that remains incompletely understood.