Citations

Abstract BACKGROUND The factors driving the best outcomes following minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for grade 1 degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis are not clearly elucidated. OBJECTIVE To investigate the factors that drive the best 24-mo patient-reported outcomes (PRO) following MIS surgery for grade 1 degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. METHODS A total of 259 patients from the Quality Outcomes Database lumbar spondylolisthesis module underwent single-level surgery for degenerative grade 1 lumbar spondylolisthesis with MIS techniques (188 fusions, 72.6%). Twenty-four-month follow-up PROs were collected and included the Oswestry disability index (ODI) change (ie, 24-mo minus baseline value), numeric rating scale (NRS) back pain change, NRS leg pain change, EuroQoL-5D (EQ-5D) questionnaire change, and North American Spine Society (NASS) satisfaction questionnaire. Multivariable models were constructed to identify predictors of PRO change. RESULTS The mean age was 64.2 ± 11.5 yr and consisted of 148 (57.1%) women and 111 (42.9%) men. In multivariable analyses, employment was associated with superior postoperative ODI change (β-7.8; 95% CI [−12.9 to −2.6]; P = .003), NRS back pain change (β −1.2; 95% CI [−2.1 to −0.4]; P = .004), EQ-5D change (β 0.1; 95% CI [0.01-0.1]; P = .03), and NASS satisfaction (OR = 3.7; 95% CI [1.7-8.3]; P < .001). Increasing age was associated with superior NRS leg pain change (β −0.1; 95% CI [−0.1 to −0.01]; P = .03) and NASS satisfaction (OR = 1.05; 95% CI [1.01-1.09]; P = .02). Fusion surgeries were associated with superior ODI change (β −6.7; 95% CI [−12.7 to −0.7]; P = .03), NRS back pain change (β −1.1; 95% CI [−2.1 to −0.2]; P = .02), and NASS satisfaction (OR = 3.6; 95% CI [1.6-8.3]; P = .002). CONCLUSION Preoperative employment and surgeries, including a fusion, were predictors of superior outcomes across the domains of disease-specific disability, back pain, leg pain, quality of life, and patient satisfaction. Increasing age was predictive of superior outcomes for leg pain improvement and satisfaction.

Abstract HACS1 is a SH3 (Src homology 3) and SAM (sterile alpha motif) domain containing adaptor protein that is expressed in activated B and dendritic cells, is up-regulated by Interleukin 4 in the process of B cell activation and likely serves to dampen the immune response. To elucidate the function of HACS1, we generated HACS1 gene knockout mice by deletion of the SH3 and SAM domains. HACS1−/− mice were viable and fertile and had normal bone marrow B cell development and normal splenic T and B cell populations. However, adult HACS1−/− mice had increased numbers of peritoneal B1 cells (IgM+CD5+). Upon LPS plus BCR or TCR stimulations, splenic cells from HACS1−/− mice demonstrated an upregulation of activation markers with increased intensity of CD23 expression or increased population of CD69 positive cells. Purified B220+ splenic B cells from HACS1−/− mice showed increased cell proliferation upon BCR stimulation. Both T helper type 1 (Th1) and T helper type 2 (Th2) humoral responses were enhanced in HACS1−/− mice upon immunization with T cell-dependent antigen NP-KLH, which resulted in increased production of interferon-gamma (IFN-γ), anti-NP IgG2a and IL-4, as well as anti-NP IgG1 and IgE. Upon immunization with T cell-independent antigens such as TNP-LPS and TNP-Ficoll, HACS1−/− mice had increased production of anti-TNP IgM and IgG3 as compared to normal controls. The in vitro maturation of bone marrow-derived dentritic cells from HACS1−/− mice was similar to wild-type mice but HACS1−/− dentritic cells showed increased IL-12 production upon stimulation with anti-CD40 or LPS. There was no significant difference in antigen uptake by cultured dentritic cells from non-immunized wild-type or knockout mice. However, in immunized mice, an increase in antigen uptake in HACS1−/− dentritic cells was observed. We further demonstrate that the HACS1−/− B cells had increased tyrosine phosphorylation in the resting state. As deletion of the SH3 & SAM domains of HACS1 appears to generate a hypersensitive immune response, our results collectively support that HACS1 negatively regulates adaptive immunity.

7556 Background: The frontline treatment for advanced follicular lymphoma has evolved with the introduction of maintenance therapy, bendamustine (Benda), obinutuzumab (G), and lenalidomide (Len). We conducted a network meta-analysis of phase 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to identify the regimens with superior efficacy. Methods: Data were extracted from 7 RCTs (FOLL05, StiL NHL1, BRIGHT, PRIMA, GALLIUM, StiL NHL7, and RELEVANCE). Progression-free survival (PFS) was compared between 11 regimens with different immunochemotherapy and maintenance strategies. To incorporate direct and indirect comparisons, random-effects Bayesian network meta-analyses were conducted after adjusting for study-wise variation. The posterior inference was derived based on Markov chain Monte Carlo methods and implemented using JAGS v4.3.0. Pairwise comparison of hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% credible intervals (CIs) were calculated. Results: PFS HRs of other regimens compared to the reference regimen are summarized in the Table. Compared to Rituximab(R)-Benda, R-CHOP had inferior PFS, R-CHOP-R, G-CHOP-G, and R-Len-R had similar PFS, while R-Benda-R, R-Benda-R4 and G-Benda-G had better PFS. Compared to R-CHOP-R, G-CHOP-G and R-Len-R had similar PFS, while R-Benda-R, R-Benda-R4 and G-Benda-G had better PFS. In addition, the PFS for G-Benda-G was similar to R-Benda-R4 (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.78-1.09) but better than R-Benda-R (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.75-0.97). Conclusions: Compared with the commonly used R-Benda and R-CHOP-R regimens, G-CHOP-G, R-Benda-R and R-Benda-R4 had better PFS, while the chemotherapy-free regimen R-Len-R had similar PFS. [Table: see text]

8035 Background: Patients (pts) with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RR MM) who are refractory or intolerant to both bortezomib (BTZ) and immunomodulators (IMiDs; thalidomide [Thal] or lenalidomide [Len]) (ie, “double-refractory/intolerant”), have few therapeutic options and a poor prognosis. Carfilzomib (CFZ), a next generation proteasome inhibitor (PI), has shown durable single-agent activity in clinical studies including 003-A1, an open-label, single-arm phase 2b trial in RR MM. The present analysis describes clinical activity in pts from 003-A1 with double-refractory/intolerant disease and in other groups of clinical interest including pts with disease refractory to all 5 approved classes of anti-MM tx (alkylators, anthracyclines, corticosteroids, IMiDs, and PIs) in clinical use (“refractory to all approved tx”). Methods: Pts from 003-A1 with double-refractory/intolerant disease were analyzed, as were pts with disease refractory to all approved tx. CFZ was given on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 16 of 28-day cycles (C), (20 mg/m2 in C1; 27 mg/m2 in C2–12). Primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints included duration of response (DOR), overall survival, and safety. Results: The study ORR was 22.9% with median DOR of 7.8 mo (N=266). 228 pts (86%) with double-refractory/intolerant disease had ORRs of 20.6% and a median DOR of 7.4 mo. Conclusions: Single-agent CFZ demonstrated clinically meaningful, durable responses in pts with double-refractory/intolerant MM or disease refractory to all 5 approved classes of tx. The ORRs across groups of clinical interest were generally consistent with results for the entire study population. These results are notable for a next-generation PI and demonstrate the activity of single-agent CFZ in pts with advanced stage MM. [Table: see text]

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND It remains unclear if minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) is comparable to traditional, open TLIF because of the limitations of the prior small-sample-size, single-center studies reporting comparative effectiveness. OBJECTIVE To compare MI-TLIF to traditional, open TLIF for grade 1 degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis in the largest study to date by sample size. METHODS We utilized the prospective Quality Outcomes Database registry and queried patients with grade 1 degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis who underwent single-segment surgery with MI- or open TLIF methods. Outcomes were compared 24 mo postoperatively. RESULTS A total of 297 patients were included: 72 (24.2%) MI-TLIF and 225 (75.8%) open TLIF. MI-TLIF surgeries had lower mean body mass indexes (29.5 ± 5.1 vs 31.3 ± 7.0, P = .0497) and more worker's compensation cases (11.1% vs 1.3%, P < .001) but were otherwise similar. MI-TLIF had less blood loss (108.8 ± 85.6 vs 299.6 ± 242.2 mL, P < .001), longer operations (228.2 ± 111.5 vs 189.6 ± 66.5 min, P < .001), and a higher return-to-work (RTW) rate (100% vs 80%, P = .02). Both cohorts improved significantly from baseline for 24-mo Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Numeric Rating Scale back pain (NRS-BP), NRS leg pain (NRS-LP), and Euro-Qol-5 dimension (EQ-5D) ( P > .001). In multivariable adjusted analyses, MI-TLIF was associated with lower ODI (β = −4.7; 95% CI = −9.3 to −0.04; P = .048), higher EQ-5D (β = 0.06; 95% CI = 0.01-0.11; P = .02), and higher satisfaction (odds ratio for North American Spine Society [NASS] 1/2 = 3.9; 95% CI = 1.4-14.3; P = .02). Though trends favoring MI-TLIF were evident for NRS-BP ( P = .06), NRS-LP ( P = .07), and reoperation rate ( P = .13), these results did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSION For single-level grade 1 degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis, MI-TLIF was associated with less disability, higher quality of life, and higher patient satisfaction compared with traditional, open TLIF. MI-TLIF was associated with higher rates of RTW, less blood loss, but longer operative times. Though we utilized multivariable adjusted analyses, these findings may be susceptible to selection bias.

OBJECTIVELoss to follow-up has been shown to bias outcomes assessment among studies utilizing clinical registries. Here, the authors analyzed patients enrolled in a national surgical registry and compared the baseline characteristics of patients captured with those lost to follow-up at 2 years.METHODSThe authors queried the Quality Outcomes Database for patients with grade I lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis undergoing a surgical intervention between July 2014 and June 2016. Only those patients enrolled in a multisite study investigating the impact of fusion on clinical and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) among patients with grade I spondylolisthesis were evaluated.RESULTSOf the 608 patients enrolled in the study undergoing 1- or 2-level decompression (23.0%, n = 140) or 1-level fusion (77.0%, n = 468), 14.5% (n = 88) were lost to follow-up at 2 years. Patients who were lost to follow-up were more likely to be younger (59.6 ± 13.5 vs 62.6 ± 11.7 years, p = 0.031), be employed (unemployment rate: 53.3% [n = 277] for successful follow-up vs 40.9% [n = 36] for those lost to follow-up, p = 0.017), have anxiety (26.1% [n = 23] vs 16.3% [n = 85], p = 0.026), have higher back pain scores (7.4 ± 2.9 vs 6.6 ± 2.8, p = 0.010), have higher leg pain scores (7.4 ± 2.5 vs 6.4 ± 2.9, p = 0.003), have higher Oswestry Disability Index scores (50.8 ± 18.7 vs 46 ± 16.8, p = 0.018), and have lower EQ-5D scores (0.481 ± 0.2 vs 0.547 ± 0.2, p = 0.012) at baseline.CONCLUSIONSTo execute future, high-quality studies, it is important to identify patients undergoing surgery for spondylolisthesis who might be lost to follow-up. In a large, prospective registry, the authors found that those lost to follow-up were more likely to be younger, be employed, have anxiety disorder, and have worse PRO scores.

Study Design. Prospective database analysis. Objective. To assess the effect of age on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and complication rates after surgical treatment for spondylolisthesis Summary of Background Data. Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis affects 3% to 20% of the population and up to 30% of the elderly. There is not yet consensus on whether age is a contraindication for surgical treatment of elderly patients. Methods. The Quality Outcomes Database lumbar registry was used to evaluate patients from 12 US academic and private centers who underwent surgical treatment for grade 1 lumbar spondylolisthesis between July 2014 and June 2016. Results. A total of 608 patients who fit the inclusion criteria were categorized by age into the following groups: less than 60 (n = 239), 60 to 70 (n = 209), 71 to 80 (n = 128), and more than 80 (n = 32) years. Older patients showed lower mean body mass index (P < 0.001) and higher rates of diabetes (P = 0.007), coronary artery disease (P = 0.0001), and osteoporosis (P = 0.005). A lower likelihood for home disposition was seen with higher age (89.1% in <60-year-old vs. 75% in >80-year-old patients; P = 0.002). There were no baseline differences in PROs (Oswestry Disability Index, EuroQol health survey [EQ-5D], Numeric Rating Scale for leg pain and back pain) among age categories. A significant improvement for all PROs was seen regardless of age (P < 0.05), and most patients met minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) for improvement in postoperative PROs. No differences in hospital readmissions or reoperations were seen among age groups (P < 0.05). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that, after controlling other variables, a higher age did not decrease the odds of achieving MCID at 12 months for the PROs. Conclusion. Our results indicate that well-selected elderly patients undergoing surgical treatment of grade 1 spondylolisthesis can achieve meaningful outcomes. This modern, multicenter US study reflects the current use and limitations of spondylolisthesis treatment in the elderly, which may be informative to patients and providers. Level of Evidence: 4

Introduction MCL is a rare cancer, and current clinical practice guidelines list multiple reasonable treatment options for MCL. It can be challenging to select treatment (Tx) that optimizes outcomes for patients with a mixture of presenting features. In 2014, we developed an online MCL decision support tool designed to provide expert guidance on optimal treatment for defined patient scenarios. An analysis of the 2014 tool showed that Tx recommendations of community healthcare providers (HCPs) did not consistently align with experts for many patients with MCL (Gopalsamy, et al. Leuk Lymphoma. 2019 Mar 8:1-9). Here we report data from an updated version (2018) of this tool that captures evolving practice patterns among experts and community HCPs and the differences between these 2 groups. Methods In September 2018, a panel of 5 experts provided Tx recommendations for 240 patient scenarios in newly diagnosed or relapsed/refractory MCL. These distinct scenarios were defined by patient and disease characteristics that the experts considered important when making treatment choices, including disease setting, patient age and fitness, cytogenetic information, LDH and Ki67 levels, and information on any previous lines of therapy. To use the tool, HCPs entered specific patient/disease characteristics using expert-defined options along with the Tx planned for each case. The users were then shown the 5 MCL expert recommendations and were asked to indicate the impact of the expert recommendations on their planned Tx approach. Results A total of 387 HCPs entered 654 patient scenarios in the 2018 online tool. For HCPs who answered an optional question on how many patients with MCL they treat per year (n = 145), 81% indicated that they treated 10 or fewer patients with MCL per year, highlighting the rarity of this disease and lack of experience among many HCPs. Furthermore, 74% of these HCPs indicated that they refer &lt; 50% of their patients with MCL for clinical trials or to academic institutions for treatment. Among experts, the primary consensus for initial Tx recommendations for younger, fit patients with MCL were bendamustine/rituximab (BR) and R-HyperCVAD in both 2014 and 2018. In comparison, HCPs chose these 2 regimens for a minority of these patients with newly diagnosed MCL in both editions of the tool. For older or unfit patients, experts predominantly recommended BR (85% in 2014 and 75% in 2018), whereas only 35% to 40% of HCPs would choose this regimen in this setting (Table). Of note, nearly 20% of the HCPs indicated that they would recommend a very aggressive chemotherapy regimen for older or unfit patients. For patients with disease progression after chemoimmunotherapy, the recommendation of ibrutinib-based therapy increased among experts from 2014 to 2018 from 66% to 100%. By contrast, the percentage of HCPs using ibrutinib-based therapy remained low at 29% or 37% in the 2014 and 2018 tools, respectively. Another 14% of HCPs selected acalabrutinib, another approved BTK inhibitor, in 2018. In addition, approximately 20% of HCPs in both 2014 and 2018 were unsure of the optimal use of additional therapy (eg, ASCT or maintenance therapy) for their patients. Among users who answered an optional question on the tool's clinical impact, 47% indicated the expert recommendations changed their planned Tx and 38% indicated that expert recommendations confirmed their approach. Conclusions The analysis of data from this online tool found several areas of expert consensus regarding Tx for patients with MCL, particularly for patients who are progressing after initial chemoimmunotherapy. However, practice patterns of community HCPs did not align with expert recommendations for the majority of cases entered into the tool. The consistent Tx gap between practice patterns of community HCPs and expert recommendations over this time period suggests a continued need for online decision tools like this and other innovative approaches to involve experts in the care of patients with MCL. A detailed comparison of expert and user data from the online tool will be presented. Disclosures Ansell: LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Trillium: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Affimed: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Trillium: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Regeneron: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding. Leonard:Nordic Nanovector: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Sutro Biopharma: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; MorphoSys: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Nordic Nanovector: Consultancy; Akcea Therapeutics: Consultancy; MorphoSys: Consultancy; Miltenyi: Consultancy; Epizyme, Inc: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Bayer Corporation: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Genentech, Inc./F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Bayer Corporation: Consultancy; Genentech, Inc./F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy; Sutro Biopharma: Consultancy; Epizyme, Inc: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; Akcea Therapeutics: Consultancy; Miltenyi: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy. Vose:Acerta Pharma: Honoraria, Other: Grants, Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb Company: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Honoraria, Other: Grants, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; Legend Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria. Wang:BioInvent: Consultancy, Research Funding; Dava Oncology: Honoraria; Aviara: Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; VelosBio: Research Funding; Acerta Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Guidepoint Global: Consultancy; MoreHealth: Consultancy, Equity Ownership; Loxo Oncology: Research Funding. Flowers:BeiGene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Denovo Biopharma: Consultancy; Millenium/Takeda: Research Funding; V Foundation: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy; Acerta: Research Funding; Genentech, Inc./F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Burroughs Wellcome Fund: Research Funding; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group: Research Funding; National Cancer Institute: Research Funding; Optimum Rx: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics/Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy.

OBJECTIVEDischarge to an inpatient rehabilitation facility or another acute-care facility not only constitutes a postoperative challenge for patients and their care team but also contributes significantly to healthcare costs. In this era of changing dynamics of healthcare payment models in which cost overruns are being increasingly shifted to surgeons and hospitals, it is important to better understand outcomes such as discharge disposition. In the current article, the authors sought to develop a predictive model for factors associated with nonroutine discharge after surgery for grade I spondylolisthesis.METHODSThe authors queried the Quality Outcomes Database for patients with grade I lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis who underwent a surgical intervention between July 2014 and June 2016. Only those patients enrolled in a multisite study investigating the impact of fusion on clinical and patient-reported outcomes among patients with grade I spondylolisthesis were evaluated. Nonroutine discharge was defined as those who were discharged to a postacute or nonacute-care setting in the same hospital or transferred to another acute-care facility.RESULTSOf the 608 patients eligible for inclusion, 9.4% (n = 57) had a nonroutine discharge (8.7%, n = 53 discharged to inpatient postacute or nonacute care in the same hospital and 0.7%, n = 4 transferred to another acute-care facility). Compared to patients who were discharged to home, patients who had a nonroutine discharge were more likely to have diabetes (26.3%, n = 15 vs 15.7%, n = 86, p = 0.039); impaired ambulation (26.3%, n = 15 vs 10.2%, n = 56, p < 0.001); higher Oswestry Disability Index at baseline (51 [IQR 42–62.12] vs 46 [IQR 34.4–58], p = 0.014); lower EuroQol-5D scores (0.437 [IQR 0.308–0.708] vs 0.597 [IQR 0.358–0.708], p = 0.010); higher American Society of Anesthesiologists score (3 or 4: 63.2%, n = 36 vs 36.7%, n = 201, p = 0.002); and longer length of stay (4 days [IQR 3–5] vs 2 days [IQR 1–3], p < 0.001); and were more likely to suffer a complication (14%, n = 8 vs 5.6%, n = 31, p = 0.014). On multivariable logistic regression, factors found to be independently associated with higher odds of nonroutine discharge included older age (interquartile OR 9.14, 95% CI 3.79–22.1, p < 0.001), higher body mass index (interquartile OR 2.04, 95% CI 1.31–3.25, p < 0.001), presence of depression (OR 4.28, 95% CI 1.96–9.35, p < 0.001), fusion surgery compared with decompression alone (OR 1.3, 95% CI 1.1–1.6, p < 0.001), and any complication (OR 3.9, 95% CI 1.4–10.9, p < 0.001).CONCLUSIONSIn this multisite study of a defined cohort of patients undergoing surgery for grade I spondylolisthesis, factors associated with higher odds of nonroutine discharge included older age, higher body mass index, presence of depression, and occurrence of any complication.