Citations

Abstract BACKGROUND With a dramatic rise in prescription opioid use, it is imperative to review postsurgical prescribing patterns given their contributions to the opioid epidemic. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the impact of departmental postoperative prescribing guidelines on opioid prescriptions following elective spine surgery. METHODS Patients undergoing elective cervical or lumbar spine surgery between 2017 and 2018 were identified. Procedure-specific opioid prescribing guidelines to limit postoperative prescribing following neurosurgical procedures were developed in 2017 and implemented in January 2018. Preguideline data were available from July to December 2017, and postguideline data from July to December 2018. Discharge prescriptions in morphine milliequivalents (MMEs), the proportion of patients (i) discharged with an opioid prescription, (ii) needing refills within 30 d, (iii) with guideline compliant prescriptions were compared in the 2 groups. Multivariable (MV) analyses were performed to assess the impact of guideline implementation on refill prescriptions within 30 d. RESULTS A total of 1193 patients were identified (cervical: 308; lumbar: 885) with 569 (47.7%) patients from the preguideline period. Following guideline implementation, fewer patients were discharged with a postoperative opioid prescription (92.5% vs 81.7%, P < .001) and median postoperative opioid prescription decreased significantly (300 MMEs vs 225 MMEs, P < .001). The 30-d refill prescription rate was not significantly different between preguideline and postguideline cohorts (pre: 24.4% vs post: 20.2%, P = .079). MV analyses did not demonstrate any impact of guideline implementation on need for 30-d refill prescriptions for both cervical (odds ratio [OR] = 0.68, confidence interval [CI] = 0.37-1.26, P = .22) and lumbar cohorts (OR = 0.95, CI = 0.66-1.36, P = .78). CONCLUSION Provider-aimed interventions such as implementation of procedure-specific prescribing guidelines can significantly reduce postoperative opioid prescriptions following spine surgery without increasing the need for refill prescriptions for pain control.

Background CT-guided biopsy is a commonly used diagnostic procedure for spinal lesions. This meta-analysis aims to investigate its diagnostic performance and complications, as well as factors influencing outcomes. Methods A systematic review of the literature was performed to identify studies reporting outcomes of CT-guided biopsies for spinal lesions. Diagnostic yield (ie, the rate of procedures resulting in a specific pathological diagnosis) and diagnostic accuracy (ie, the rate of procedures resulting in the correct diagnosis) were the primary outcomes of interest. Complications following biopsy procedures were also included. Results Thirty-nine studies with 3917 patients undergoing 4181 procedures were included. Diagnostic yield per procedure was 91% (95% CI 88% to 94%) among 3598 procedures. The most common reason for non-diagnostic biopsies was inadequacy of sample. No difference in diagnostic yield between different locations and between lytic, sclerotic, and mixed lesions was found. Diagnostic yield did not differ between procedures using ≤13G and ≥14G needles. Diagnostic accuracy per procedure was 86% (95% CI 82% to 89%) among 3054 procedures. Diagnostic accuracy among 2426 procedures that yielded a diagnosis was 94% (95% CI 92% to 96%). Complication rate was 1% (95% CI 0.4% to 1.9%) among 3357 procedures. Transient pain and minor hematoma were the most common complications encountered. Conclusion In our meta-analysis of 39 studies reporting diagnostic performance and complications of CT-guided biopsy, we found a diagnostic yield of 91% and diagnostic accuracy of 86% with a complication rate of 1%. Diagnostic yield did not differ between different locations, between lytic, sclerotic and mixed lesions, and between wide- and thin-bore needles.

OBJECTIVE The ideal surgical management of grade I lumbar spondylolisthesis has not been determined despite extensive prior investigations. In this cohort study, the authors used data from the large, multicenter, prospectively collected Quality Outcomes Database to bridge the gap between the findings in previous randomized trials and those in a more heterogeneous population treated in a typical practice. The objective was to assess the difference in patient-reported outcomes among patients undergoing decompression alone or decompression plus fusion. METHODS The primary outcome measure was change in 24-month Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in ODI score change and 30% change in ODI score at 24 months were also evaluated. After adjusting for patient-specific and clinical factors, multivariable linear and logistic regressions were employed to evaluate the impact of fusion on outcomes. To account for differences in age, sex, body mass index, and baseline listhesis, a sensitivity analysis was performed using propensity score analysis to match patients undergoing decompression only with those undergoing decompression and fusion. RESULTS In total, 608 patients who had grade I lumbar spondylolisthesis were identified (85.5% with at least 24 months of follow-up); 140 (23.0%) underwent decompression alone and 468 (77.0%) underwent decompression and fusion. The 24-month change in ODI score was significantly greater in the fusion plus decompression group than in the decompression-only group (−25.8 ± 20.0 vs −15.2 ± 19.8, p < 0.001). Fusion remained independently associated with 24-month ODI score change (B = −7.05, 95% CI −10.70 to −3.39, p ≤ 0.001) in multivariable regression analysis, as well as with achieving the MCID for the ODI score (OR 1.767, 95% CI 1.058–2.944, p = 0.029) and 30% change in ODI score (OR 2.371, 95% CI 1.286–4.371, p = 0.005). Propensity score analysis resulted in 94 patients in the decompression-only group matched 1 to 1 with 94 patients in the fusion group. The addition of fusion to decompression remained a significant predictor of 24-month change in the ODI score (B = 2.796, 95% CI 2.228–13.275, p = 0.006) and of achieving the 24-month MCID ODI score (OR 2.898, 95% CI 1.214–6.914, p = 0.016) and 24-month 30% change in ODI score (OR 2.300, 95% CI 1.014–5.216, p = 0.046). CONCLUSIONS These results suggest that decompression plus fusion in patients with grade I lumbar spondylolisthesis may be associated with superior outcomes at 24 months compared with decompression alone, both in reduction of disability and in achieving clinically meaningful improvement. Longer-term follow-up is warranted to assess whether this effect is sustained.

OBJECTIVE The development of new treatment approaches for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS) has introduced many questions about comparative effectiveness and long-term outcomes. Patient registries collect robust, longitudinal data that could be combined or aggregated to form a national and potentially international research data infrastructure to address these and other research questions. However, linking data across registries is challenging because registries typically define and capture different outcome measures. Variation in outcome measures occurs in clinical practice and other types of research studies as well, limiting the utility of existing data sources for addressing new research questions. The purpose of this project was to develop a minimum set of patient- and clinician-relevant standardized outcome measures that are feasible for collection in DLS registries and clinical practice. METHODS Nineteen DLS registries, observational studies, and quality improvement efforts were invited to participate and submit outcome measures. A stakeholder panel was organized that included representatives from medical specialty societies, health systems, government agencies, payers, industries, health information technology organizations, and patient advocacy groups. The panel categorized the measures using the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality’s Outcome Measures Framework (OMF), identified a minimum set of outcome measures, and developed standardized definitions through a consensus-based process. RESULTS The panel identified and harmonized 57 outcome measures into a minimum set of 10 core outcome measure areas and 6 supplemental outcome measure areas. The measures are organized into the OMF categories of survival, clinical response, events of interest, patient-reported outcomes, and resource utilization. CONCLUSIONS This effort identified a minimum set of standardized measures that are relevant to patients and clinicians and appropriate for use in DLS registries, other research efforts, and clinical practice. Collection of these measures across registries and clinical practice is an important step for building research data infrastructure, creating learning healthcare systems, and improving patient management and outcomes in DLS.

Abstract Background En bloc spondylectomy is the gold standard for surgical resection of sacral chordomas (CHO), but the effect of extent of resection on recurrence and survival in patients with CHO of the cervical spine remains elusive. Methods MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane were systematically reviewed. Patients with cervical CHO treated at three tertiary-care academic institutions were reviewed for inclusion. We performed an individual participant data meta-analysis to assess the overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS) after en bloc-gross total resection (GTR) and intralesional-GTR compared to subtotal resection (STR). We then performed an intention-to-treat analysis including all patients with attempted en bloc resection in the en bloc group, regardless of the surgical margins. Results There was a total of 13 series including 161 patients with cervical CHO, including our current series of 22 patients. GTR (en bloc-GTR + intralesional-GTR) was associated with a significant decrease in the risk of local progression (pooled hazard ratio (PHR) = 0.22; 95% CI = 0.08–0.59; p = 0.003) and risk of death (PHR = 0.31; 95%; CI:0.12–0.83; p = 0.020). A meta-regression analyses determined that intralesional-GTR improved PFS (PHR = 0.35; 95%CI = 0.16–0.76; p = 0.009) as well as OS (PHR = 0.25; 95%CI = 0.08–0.79; p = 0.019) when compared to STR. En bloc-GTR was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of local progression (PHR = 0.06; 95%CI = 0.01–0.77; p = 0.030), but not a decreased OS (PHR = 0.50; 95% CI = 0.19–1.27; p = 0.145). Our intention-to-treat analyses revealed a near significant improvement in OS for the en bloc group (PHR: 0.15; 95%CI:0.02–1.22; p = 0.054), and nearly identical improvement in PFS. Radiation data was not available for the studies included in the meta-analysis. Conclusion This is the first and only meta-analysis of patients with cervical CHO. We found that both en bloc-GTR and intralesional-GTR resulted in improved local tumor control when compared to STR.

OBJECTIVE Surgical treatment for degenerative spondylolisthesis has been proven to be clinically challenging and cost-effective. However, there is a range of thresholds that surgeons utilize for incorporating fusion in addition to decompressive laminectomy in these cases. This study investigates these surgeon- and site-specific factors by using the Quality Outcomes Database (QOD). METHODS The QOD was queried for all cases that had undergone surgery for grade 1 spondylolisthesis from database inception to February 2019. In addition to patient-specific covariates, surgeon-specific covariates included age, sex, race, years in practice (0–10, 11–20, 21–30, > 30 years), and fellowship training. Site-specific variables included hospital location (rural, suburban, urban), teaching versus nonteaching status, and hospital type (government, nonfederal; private, nonprofit; private, investor owned). Multivariable regression and predictor importance analyses were performed to identify predictors of the treatment performed (decompression alone vs decompression and fusion). The model was clustered by site to account for site-specific heterogeneity in treatment selection. RESULTS A total of 12,322 cases were included with 1988 (16.1%) that had undergone decompression alone. On multivariable regression analysis clustered by site, adjusting for patient-level clinical covariates, no surgeon-specific factors were found to be significantly associated with the odds of selecting decompression alone as the surgery performed. However, sites located in suburban areas (OR 2.32, 95% CI 1.09–4.84, p = 0.03) were more likely to perform decompression alone (reference = urban). Sites located in rural areas had higher odds of performing decompression alone than hospitals located in urban areas, although the results were not statistically significant (OR 1.33, 95% CI 0.59–2.61, p = 0.49). Nonteaching status was independently associated with lower odds of performing decompression alone (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.19–0.97, p = 0.04). Predictor importance analysis revealed that the most important determinants of treatment selection were dominant symptom (Wald χ2 = 34.7, accounting for 13.6% of total χ2) and concurrent diagnosis of disc herniation (Wald χ2 = 31.7, accounting for 12.4% of total χ2). Hospital teaching status was also found to be relatively important (Wald χ2 = 4.2, accounting for 1.6% of total χ2) but less important than other patient-level predictors. CONCLUSIONS Nonteaching centers were more likely to perform decompressive laminectomy with supplemental fusion for spondylolisthesis. Suburban hospitals were more likely to perform decompression only. Surgeon characteristics were not found to influence treatment selection after adjustment for clinical covariates. Further large database registry experience from surgeons at high-volume academic centers at which surgically and medically complex patients are treated may provide additional insight into factors associated with treatment preference for degenerative spondylolisthesis.

Study Design: Retrospective cohort study. Objective: Studies investigating the impact of interbody subsidence in ACDF suggest a correlation between subsidence and worse radiographic and patient-reported outcomes. The purpose of this study was to assess whether allograft subsidence assessed on CT is associated with worse cervical alignment. Methods: We performed a retrospective review of a prospective cohort of patients undergoing 1 to 3 level ACDF. Cervical alignment was assessed on standing radiographs performed preoperatively, less than 2 months postoperatively, and greater than 6 months postoperatively. Allograft subsidence was assessed on CT scan performed at least 6 months postoperatively. Patients with at least 1 level demonstrating greater than 4mm of cage subsidence were classified as severe subsidence. Student’s t-test was used to compare all means between groups. Results: We identified 66 patients for inclusion, including 56 patients with non-severe subsidence and 10 patients with severe subsidence. For the entire cohort, there was a significant increase in C2-7 Lordosis (p = 0.005) and Segmental Lordosis (p < 0.00 001) from preoperative to early postoperative. On comparison of severely and non-severely subsided levels, severely subsided levels demonstrated a significantly greater loss of segmental lordosis from early to mid-term follow-up than non-severely subsided levels (-4.89 versus -2.59 degrees, p < 0.0001), manifesting as a significantly lower segmental lordosis at >6 months postoperative (0.54 versus 3.82 degrees, p < 0.00 001). There were no significant differences in global cervical alignment parameters between patients with severe and non-severe subsidence. Conclusions: Severe subsidence is associated with a significant increase in loss of segmental lordosis, but has minimal effect on global cervical alignment parameters.

Study Design Retrospective. Objective The aim of this study was to explore the utilization trends of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein (rh-BMP) in the United States using the largest inpatient administrative database. Summary of Background Data Since 2002, the rh-BMP has been widely used by the surgical spine community in fusion surgery. In light of the rising evidence regarding the safety and efficacy of this novel and expensive bone biological technology, a comprehensive examination of its utilization in the American population is warranted. Methods We queried the 2002-Q3 2015 National Inpatient Sample for patients that underwent spinal fusion with rh-BMP. We calculated population-level estimates of rh-BMP utilization trends per 100,000 spinal fusions. Trends were estimated for the overall use as well as broken down by primary versus revision fusion, fusion type, number of levels, age category, US region, and hospital type. Results A total of 5,563,282 fusions were performed, of which 19.9% (n = 1,108,984) utilized rh-BMP. We detected an increase in rh-BMP use in spinal fusion surgery from 0.7% in 2002 to a peak of 29.5% in 2010, followed by a gradual decline till Q3 2015, where it represented 14.7% of all fusion surgeries. These trends paralleled all fusion types. It was most commonly used in fusions spanning two to three levels. The South remained the most common region, whereas West has recently surpassed the Midwest. Its use is becoming more pervasive among older patients, particularly in the 65- to 74 years’ age group. Conclusion Further studies are needed to provide insights into the correlation of these trends with the technology's safety and efficacy profile in contemporary series. Level of Evidence: 3

Study Design. Retrospective analysis of a prospective registry. Objective. We utilized the Quality Outcomes Database (QOD) registry to investigate the “July Effect” at QOD spondylolisthesis module sites with residency trainees. Summary of Background Data. There is a paucity of investigation on the long-term outcomes following surgeries involving new trainees utilizing high-quality, prospectively collected data. Methods. This was an analysis of 608 patients who underwent single-segment surgery for grade 1 degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis at 12 high-enrolling sites. Surgeries were classified as occurring in July or not in July (non-July). Outcomes collected included estimated blood loss, length of stay, operative time, discharge disposition, complications, reoperation and readmission rates, and patient-reported outcomes (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI], Numeric Rating Scale [NRS] Back Pain, NRS Leg Pain, EuroQol-5D [EQ-5D] and the North American Spine Society [NASS] Satisfaction Questionnaire). Propensity score-matched analyses were utilized to compare postoperative outcomes and complication rates between the July and non-July groups. Results. Three hundred seventy-one surgeries occurred at centers with a residency training program with 21 (5.7%) taking place in July. In propensity score-matched analyses, July surgeries were associated with longer operative times ( average treatment effect = 22.4 minutes longer, 95% confidence interval 0.9–449.0, P = 0.041). Otherwise, July surgeries were not associated with significantly different outcomes for the remaining perioperative parameters (estimated blood loss, length of stay, discharge disposition, postoperative complications), overall reoperation rates, 3-month readmission rates, and 24-month ODI, NRS back pain, NRS leg pain, EQ-5D, and NASS satisfaction score (P > 0.05, all comparisons). Conclusion. Although July surgeries were associated with longer operative times, there were no associations with other clinical outcomes compared to non-July surgeries following lumbar spondylolisthesis surgery. These findings may be due to the increased attending supervision and intraoperative education during the beginning of the academic year. There is no evidence that the influx of new trainees in July significantly affects long-term patient-centered outcomes. Level of Evidence: 3

Study Design. Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected registry data. Objective. The aim of this study was to compare the performance of 30% reduction to established absolute point-change values for measures of disability and pain in patients undergoing elective cervical spine surgery. Summary of Background Data. Recent studies recommend using a proportional change from baseline instead of an absolute point-change value to define minimum clinically important difference (MCID). Methods. Analyses included 13,179 patients who underwent cervical spine surgery for degenerative disease between April 2013 and February 2018. Participants completed a baseline and 12-month follow-up assessment that included questionnaires to assess disability (Neck Disability Index [NDI]), neck and arm pain (Numeric Rating Scale [NRS-NP/AP], and satisfaction [NASS scale]). Participants were classified as met or not met 30% reduction from baseline in each of the respective measures. The 30% reduction in scores at 12 months was compared to a wide range of established absolute point-change MCID values using receiver-operating characteristic curves, area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUROC), and logistic regression analyses. These analyses were conducted for the entire patient cohort, as well as for subgroups based on baseline severity and surgical approach. Results. Thirty percent reduction in NDI and NRS-NP/AP scores predicted satisfaction with more accuracy than absolute point-change values for the total population and ACDF and posterior fusion procedures (P < 0.05). The largest AUROC differences, in favor of 30% reduction, were found for the lowest disability (ODI 0–20%: 16.8%) and bed-bound disability (ODI 81%–100%: 16.6%) categories. For pain, there was a 1.9% to 11% and 1.6% to 9.6% AUROC difference for no/mild neck and arm pain (NRS 0–4), respectively, in favor of a 30% reduction threshold. Conclusion. A 30% reduction from baseline is a valid method for determining MCID in disability and pain for patients undergoing cervical spine surgery. Level of Evidence: 3