Citations

PURPOSE The ECOG-ACRIN E3311 phase II trial demonstrated outstanding disease control (90.6% 54-month progression-free survival) after transoral surgery (TOS) with de-escalated, risk-based postoperative management in resectable human papillomavirus–associated oropharyngeal cancer. The goal of de-escalation was functional preservation. The objective of this work was to evaluate clinician-graded modified barium swallow (MBS) studies from E3311 over time and across arms for (1) aspiration and high-grade pharyngeal residue rates, (2) differences in swallow safety and efficiency, and (3) accuracy of site clinicians reporting against central MBS review. METHODS Eight hundred eighty-five MBS studies were performed on 314 patients from 50 of 59 sites at baseline, post-TOS, and 6 and 24 months postradiotherapy (RT). Swallow outcomes (aspiration, high-grade residue) were recorded by site clinicians. A subset of 414 MBS studies was centrally graded using penetration-aspiration scale scores and the Dynamic Imaging Grade of Swallowing Toxicity (DIGEST) scale. RESULTS Aspiration, residue, and dysphagia rates significantly increased from baseline to post-TOS ( P < .01) and then decreased modestly at 6 and 24 months. At 6 months, swallow outcomes favored the 50- versus 60-Gy arm, with significantly lower aspiration and high-grade dysphagia rates, but this difference was not maintained at 24 months. MBS results reported by site clinicians demonstrated substantial agreement with those assessed by the central laboratory (PABAK, 0.75-0.84; P < .01). CONCLUSION Swallowing worsened after TOS but improved by 6 and 24 months despite adjuvant therapy. De-escalated adjuvant RT at 50 Gy reduced acute aspiration. Site-reported MBS metrics strongly aligned with DIGEST, showing potential as an accessible metric in cooperative group settings.

OBJECTIVE Isthmic spondylolisthesis impacts up to 11.5% of the general population. For patients who have failed conservative therapy, decompression and fusion or decompression alone are options for surgical management. However, there remains debate as to whether reduction of mobile spondylolisthesis is integral to good patient outcomes. The present systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to address this by comparing clinical and radiological outcomes between patients treated with fusion in situ and those undergoing fusion with reduction of isthmic spondylolisthesis. METHODS The Scopus, EMBASE, Medline, and Cochrane databases were systematically queried on the basis of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to identify studies comparing treatment outcomes in patients with isthmic spondylolisthesis after in situ fusion or fusion with spondylolisthesis reduction. Endpoints of interest included Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score, hospitalization duration, operative morbidity, and rates of surgical revision. Data from individual studies were aggregated using random-effects models to assess combined effects. RESULTS Of 277 identified studies, 7 studies were included with an aggregate 308 patients (143 underwent fusion in situ and 165 underwent reduction). Patients who underwent reduction for isthmic lumbar spondylolisthesis had significantly lower rates of pseudarthrosis at last follow-up (OR 0.22, p = 0.03). Estimated blood loss, operative time, hospitalization duration, change in ODI score, change in back pain (visual analog scale [VAS]), and reoperation rate did not differ significantly between groups. CONCLUSIONS For patients with isthmic spondylolisthesis, the present data suggest that fusion with reduction of spondylolisthesis may lower rates of pseudarthrosis as compared to in situ fusion. However, operative morbidity and improvement in patient-reported outcomes were similar between strategies.

OBJECTIVE Hundreds of thousands of Americans undergo decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis annually. The mild (minimally invasive lumbar decompression) procedure was developed as a potentially less invasive alternative to open decompression; however, much of the evidence has been gathered from industry-sponsored studies. The present study sought to compare real-world clinical outcomes between the mild procedure and open decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis. METHODS All patients who underwent the mild procedure at a single-institution, multisite, tertiary care center from 2005 to October 2024 were included. One-to-one propensity score matching was used to identify patients who underwent open decompression at the same institution, with age, sex, smoking, and comorbidities as covariates. Primary outcomes were change in pain on the numeric rating scale (NRS), surgical reoperation, and perioperative complications. For pain, the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) was defined as a 30% improvement in NRS score. RESULTS A total of 175 patients who underwent the mild procedure (mean age 76.3 ± 8.7 years; 44.6% female) were matched to 175 patients treated with open decompression (mean age 75.4 ± 8.7 years; 44.0% female). Among patients with at least 60 days of follow-up, those treated with open decompression were more likely to achieve the MCID for pain (43.1% vs 22.2%, p < 0.001). Patients treated with mild were more likely to require reoperation (46.2% vs 29.3%, p = 0.008). Those who underwent the mild procedure experienced lower rates of durotomies (0% vs 2.9%, p = 0.024) but had higher rates of neurological deficits (6.3% vs 0.6%, p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS For patients with symptomatic lumbar stenosis, those who underwent open decompression were more likely to achieve pain improvement and less likely to require reoperation compared with those who underwent the mild procedure.

OBJECTIVE Surgical site infection (SSI) is a leading cause of morbidity following posterior spine surgery. The optimal choice of skin closure technique depending on patient- and procedure-specific characteristics remains to be elucidated. METHODS The Neurosurgery Enterprise Registry (NER) at Mayo Clinic was queried for patients who underwent posterior spine surgery from 2017 to 2023. Propensity matching was performed to match patients on the basis of the development of SSI and baseline characteristics, including age, sex, race, and comorbidities. Perioperative outcomes were analyzed using data from the NER and medical records. RESULTS A total of 18,842 cases of posterior spine surgery were identified in the NER, and SSI was observed in 154 cases (0.8%). Of these patients, 308 patients were included in the 1:1 propensity score–matched cohort analysis, with 154 patients included in each group. Sutures were used in 224 patients (72.7%) and staples in 84 patients (27.3%) (p < 0.01). Female patients comprised 45.1% of the sutures group and 46.4% of the staples group (p = 0.8). The mean ± SD age was 59.8 ± 15.4 years in the sutures group and 60.8 ± 11.9 years in the staples group (p = 0.6). Fusion was performed in 27.2% of patients in the sutures group and 44% in the staples group (p < 0.01). Multilevel fusion comprised 68.9% of fusion cases in the sutures group and 67.6% in the staples group (p = 0.8). Comorbidities, such as diabetes (p = 0.6), hypertension (p = 0.1), and the use of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) (p = 0.5) and immunosuppressants (p = 0.2), did not differ between groups. Univariate analysis performed in the propensity score–matched cohort showed that SSI was observed in 53.6% of patients in the sutures group and 40.5% in the staples group (p = 0.04). No significant differences were noted regarding 30-day (p = 0.3), 90-day (p = 0.2), and 1-year (p = 0.3) readmissions and 30-day (p = 0.7), 90-day (p = 0.8), and 1-year (p = 0.8) reoperations. On multivariable logistic regression, SSI was not significantly associated with the choice of skin closure technique (p = 0.3). CONCLUSIONS After adjustment for spinal fusion, number of fused levels, the use of immunosuppressants, and other risk factors, SSI development was not significantly associated with the use of sutures versus staples following posterior spine surgery in our institution. Additionally, no significant differences were observed regarding baseline characteristics and other perioperative outcomes. The authors’ analysis shows that skin closure technique did not significantly affect SSI rates and other outcomes in these patients.

OBJECTIVE The implementation of robotics and spinal anesthesia (SA) in spine surgery is rapidly expanding, offering significant benefits for an increasingly complex and aging patient population with degenerative spinal disease. Here, the authors present the largest cohort to date evaluating the combined use of these two techniques in minimally invasive (MIS) transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). METHODS The authors retrospectively analyzed surgical outcomes of a series of patients who underwent robot-assisted (RA)–MIS TLIF under SA and general anesthesia (GA) at their institution from 2018 to 2024. Primary outcomes included operative times and postoperative pain intensity. Secondary outcomes included estimated blood loss, intraoperative complications, postoperative functional status, length of stay (LOS), and discharge status. To address potential confounders, a 1:1 propensity score–matching and regression analysis was implemented. Statistical analyses were conducted using Python. RESULTS A total of 209 patients underwent RA-MIS TLIF, with 31 (14.83%) receiving SA and 178 (85.17%) GA. After propensity score matching, the SA cohort demonstrated significantly shorter median total operating room (OR) time, total procedure time, time from entering the OR to skin incision, and time from closure to leaving the OR (all p < 0.01). Additionally, postoperative pain scores were significantly lower (p < 0.01), and LOS was significantly shorter (p < 0.01) in the SA cohort. Regression analysis, adjusting for potential confounders, further supported these findings. CONCLUSIONS RA-MIS TLIF fusion under SA is a safe and effective approach that significantly reduces operative time, postoperative pain, and hospital LOS in patients undergoing surgery for degenerative lumbar spine disease.

OBJECTIVE Lordotic devices have garnered increased attention for improving the segmental lordosis (SL) achieved with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). However, it is unclear the degree to which surgeons maximize the "ideal" or listed lordosis of the interbody device. METHODS Patients undergoing one- or two-level TLIF for degenerative pathologies were identified and data were extracted on demographics, baseline lumbopelvic radiographic parameters, and TLIF details. The primary outcome of interest was the degree to which postoperative SL approximated the listed cage lordosis (Δtarget). Change in SL was a secondary outcome. Linear mixed-effects modeling was used to identify significant predictors of the percentage of ideal lordosis achieved. RESULTS A total of 239 treated levels were included (median patient age 66.6 years; 56.9% female); 151 levels were part of single-level TLIF constructs. The median segmental corrections were a 2.8° increase in SL and 2.8 mm in disc height. The median difference between listed cage lordosis and postoperative SL (Δtarget) was 0.5°. However, only 56.1% of levels achieved at least the listed cage lordosis. Linear mixed-effects modeling found that independent predictors of Δtarget were lower implant lordosis (estimate −1.01° [95% CI −1.15° to −0.87°] per degree, p < 0.001), greater preoperative SL (estimate 0.38° [95% CI 0.28°–0.48°] per degree, p < 0.001), greater preoperative PI (estimate 0.06° [95% CI 0.02°–0.11°] per degree, p = 0.007), and closer approximation of the anterior apophyseal ring of the caudal vertebrae (estimate −0.27° [95% CI −0.39° to −0.15°] per mm, p < 0.001). Similarly, independent predictors of postoperative SL were larger implant lordosis (estimate 0.16° [95% CI 0.05°–0.27°] per degree, p = 0.004), lower preoperative SL (estimate −0.70° [95% CI −0.79° to −0.62°] per degree, p < 0.001), greater preoperative PI (estimate 0.08° [95% CI 0.04°–0.12°] per degree, p < 0.001), and closer approximation of the anterior apophyseal ring of the cranial vertebrae (estimate −0.15° [95% CI −0.28° to −0.03°] per mm, p = 0.014). CONCLUSIONS The present results suggest that while lordosing, only 56% TLIF operations obtain the listed interbody lordosis ("target" lordosis). Anterior placement within the disc space is the only modifiable intraoperative technical factor for maximizing lordosis for a given interbody, highlighting the importance of effective disc space exenteration.

OBJECTIVE Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are standardized questionnaires used to evaluate patients’ quality of life and health status before and after medical procedures. While worse preoperative health is often associated with worse postoperative outcomes, the role of baseline PROMs in predicting postoperative dysphagia following cervical surgery has been unexplored with Eating Assessment Tool–10 (EAT-10) scores. This study aimed to investigate the relationship between baseline PROMs and the incidence of postoperative dysphagia. METHODS A prospectively collected multi-institutional quality registry of patients undergoing anterior cervical spine surgery was retrospectively reviewed. Eight baseline PROMs were assessed: Neck Disability Index (NDI), modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association scale, EQ-5D questionnaire, EuroQol visual analog scale, visual analog scales for neck pain (NP-VAS) and arm pain, and 10-item Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Global Physical Health and Global Mental Health. Including baseline dysphagia as a fixed effect, multivariable logistic regressions were performed to examine the impact of patient-reported baseline PROMs on the incidence of dysphagia. RESULTS Baseline PROMs were collected from 1706 patients. When assessing baseline PROMs independently in multivariable analyses, worse baseline NDI score (OR 1.04, p = 0.001) was a significant predictor of dysphagia at 12 months after surgery, while other PROMs were not. When assessing baseline PROMs together in multivariable analysis, worse baseline NDI score (OR 1.07, p < 0.001) and better NP-VAS score (OR 0.88, p = 0.006) were significant predictors of dysphagia at 12 months, while other PROMs were not. Patients in the severe or complete disability NDI categories (NDI score ≥ 25; 465/1466 patients without baseline dysphagia) experienced significantly more new dysphagia at 1 month (65% vs 50%, p < 0.001), 3 months (30% vs 21%, p < 0.001), and 12 months (32% vs 14%, p < 0.001) after anterior cervical spine surgery. These patients also had no significant difference in baseline EAT-10 scores (0.103 ± 0.386 vs 0.115 ± 0.405, p = 0.6), yet experienced significantly worse EAT-10 score changes between baseline and 12 months (3.369 ± 5.954 vs 1.208 ± 3.332, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS Baseline NDI score appears to be the strongest independent predictor of the 8 PROMs in determining whether patients have dysphagia at 12 months after anterior cervical surgery.