Citations

OBJECTIVENonhome discharge and unplanned readmissions represent important cost drivers following spinal fusion. The authors sought to utilize different machine learning algorithms to predict discharge to rehabilitation and unplanned readmissions in patients receiving spinal fusion.METHODSThe authors queried the 2012–2013 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) for patients undergoing cervical or lumbar spinal fusion. Outcomes assessed included discharge to nonhome facility and unplanned readmissions within 30 days after surgery. A total of 7 machine learning algorithms were evaluated. Predictive hierarchical clustering of procedure codes was used to increase model performance. Model performance was evaluated using overall accuracy and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), as well as sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values. These performance metrics were computed for both the imputed and unimputed (missing values dropped) datasets.RESULTSA total of 59,145 spinal fusion cases were analyzed. The incidence rates of discharge to nonhome facility and 30-day unplanned readmission were 12.6% and 4.5%, respectively. All classification algorithms showed excellent discrimination (AUC > 0.80, range 0.85–0.87) for predicting nonhome discharge. The generalized linear model showed comparable performance to other machine learning algorithms. By comparison, all models showed poorer predictive performance for unplanned readmission, with AUC ranging between 0.63 and 0.66. Better predictive performance was noted with models using imputed data.CONCLUSIONSIn an analysis of patients undergoing spinal fusion, multiple machine learning algorithms were found to reliably predict nonhome discharge with modest performance noted for unplanned readmissions. These results provide early evidence regarding the feasibility of modern machine learning classifiers in predicting these outcomes and serve as possible clinical decision support tools to facilitate shared decision making.

Abstract BACKGROUND Modern healthcare reforms focus on identifying and measuring the quality and value of care. Patient satisfaction is particularly important in the management of degenerative cervical radiculopathy (DCR) since it leads to significant neck pain and disability primarily affecting the patients’ quality of life. OBJECTIVE To determine the association of baseline and 12-mo Neck Disability Index (NDI) with patient satisfaction after elective surgery for DCR. METHODS The Quality Outcomes Database cervical module was queried for patients who underwent elective surgery for DCR. A multivariable proportional odds regression model was fitted with 12-mo satisfaction as the outcome. The covariates for this model included patients’ demographics, surgical characteristics, and baseline and 12-mo patient reported outcomes (PROs). Wald-statistics were calculated to determine the relative importance of each independent variable for 12-mo patient satisfaction. RESULTS The analysis included 2206 patients who underwent elective surgery for DCR. In multivariable analysis, after adjusting for baseline and surgery specific variables, the 12-mo NDI score showed the highest association with 12-mo satisfaction (Waldχ2-df = 99.17, 58.1% of total χ2). The level of satisfaction increases with decrease in 12-mo NDI score regardless of the baseline NDI score. CONCLUSION Our study identifies 12-mo NDI score as a very influential driver of 12-mo patient satisfaction after surgery for DCR. In addition, there are lesser contributions from other 12-mo PROs, baseline Numeric Rating Scale for arm pain and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade. The baseline level of disability was found to be irrelevant to patients. They seemed to only value their current level of disability, compared to baseline, in rating satisfaction with surgical outcome.

OBJECTIVE The optimal minimally invasive surgery (MIS) approach for grade 1 lumbar spondylolisthesis is not clearly elucidated. In this study, the authors compared the 24-month patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after MIS transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and MIS decompression for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. METHODS A total of 608 patients from 12 high-enrolling sites participating in the Quality Outcomes Database (QOD) lumbar spondylolisthesis module underwent single-level surgery for degenerative grade 1 lumbar spondylolisthesis, of whom 143 underwent MIS (72 MIS TLIF [50.3%] and 71 MIS decompression [49.7%]). Surgeries were classified as MIS if there was utilization of percutaneous screw fixation and placement of a Wiltse plane MIS intervertebral body graft (MIS TLIF) or if there was a tubular decompression (MIS decompression). Parameters obtained at baseline through at least 24 months of follow-up were collected. PROs included the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), numeric rating scale (NRS) for back pain, NRS for leg pain, EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) questionnaire, and North American Spine Society (NASS) satisfaction questionnaire. Multivariate models were constructed to adjust for patient characteristics, surgical variables, and baseline PRO values. RESULTS The mean age of the MIS cohort was 67.1 ± 11.3 years (MIS TLIF 62.1 years vs MIS decompression 72.3 years) and consisted of 79 (55.2%) women (MIS TLIF 55.6% vs MIS decompression 54.9%). The proportion in each cohort reaching the 24-month follow-up did not differ significantly between the cohorts (MIS TLIF 83.3% and MIS decompression 84.5%, p = 0.85). MIS TLIF was associated with greater blood loss (mean 108.8 vs 33.0 ml, p < 0.001), longer operative time (mean 228.2 vs 101.8 minutes, p < 0.001), and longer length of hospitalization (mean 2.9 vs 0.7 days, p < 0.001). MIS TLIF was associated with a significantly lower reoperation rate (14.1% vs 1.4%, p = 0.004). Both cohorts demonstrated significant improvements in ODI, NRS back pain, NRS leg pain, and EQ-5D at 24 months (p < 0.001, all comparisons relative to baseline). In multivariate analyses, MIS TLIF—as opposed to MIS decompression alone—was associated with superior ODI change (β = −7.59, 95% CI −14.96 to −0.23; p = 0.04), NRS back pain change (β = −1.54, 95% CI −2.78 to −0.30; p = 0.02), and NASS satisfaction (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.12–0.82; p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS For symptomatic, single-level degenerative spondylolisthesis, MIS TLIF was associated with a lower reoperation rate and superior outcomes for disability, back pain, and patient satisfaction compared with posterior MIS decompression alone. This finding may aid surgical decision-making when considering MIS for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.

OBJECTIVE Since the enactment of the Affordable Care Act in 2010, providers and hospitals have increasingly prioritized patient-centered outcomes such as patient satisfaction in an effort to adapt the “value”-based healthcare model. In the current study, the authors queried a prospectively maintained multiinstitutional spine registry to construct a predictive model for long-term patient satisfaction among patients undergoing surgery for Meyerding grade I lumbar spondylolisthesis. METHODS The authors queried the Quality Outcomes Database for patients undergoing surgery for grade I lumbar spondylolisthesis between July 1, 2014, and June 30, 2016. The primary outcome of interest for the current study was patient satisfaction as measured by the North American Spine Surgery patient satisfaction index, which is measured on a scale of 1–4, with 1 indicating most satisfied and 4 indicating least satisfied. In order to identify predictors of higher satisfaction, the authors fitted a multivariable proportional odds logistic regression model for ≥ 2 years of patient satisfaction after adjusting for an array of clinical and patient-specific factors. The absolute importance of each covariate in the model was computed using an importance metric defined as Wald chi-square penalized by the predictor degrees of freedom. RESULTS A total of 502 patients, out of a cohort of 608 patients (82.5%) with grade I lumbar spondylolisthesis, undergoing either 1- or 2-level decompression (22.5%, n = 113) or 1-level decompression and fusion (77.5%, n = 389), met the inclusion criteria; of these, 82.1% (n = 412) were satisfied after 2 years. On univariate analysis, satisfied patients were more likely to be employed and working (41.7%, n = 172, vs 24.4%, n = 22; overall p = 0.001), more likely to present with predominant leg pain (23.1%, n = 95, vs 11.1%, n = 10; overall p = 0.02) but more likely to present with lower Numeric Rating Scale score for leg pain (median and IQR score: 7 [5–9] vs 8 [6–9]; p = 0.05). Multivariable proportional odds logistic regression revealed that older age (OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.09–2.76; p = 0.009), preoperative active employment (OR 2.06, 95% CI 1.27–3.67; p = 0.015), and fusion surgery (OR 2.3, 95% CI 1.30–4.06; p = 0.002) were the most important predictors of achieving satisfaction with surgical outcome. CONCLUSIONS Current findings from a large multiinstitutional study indicate that most patients undergoing surgery for grade I lumbar spondylolisthesis achieved long-term satisfaction. Moreover, the authors found that older age, preoperative active employment, and fusion surgery are associated with higher odds of achieving satisfaction.

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.

Study Design. Case–control analysis and systematic literature review. Objective. To illustrate the prognosis and perioperative risk factors associated with this condition. Summary of Background Data. Ischemic optic neuropathy (ION) is the most common pathological diagnosis underlying postoperative vision loss. It comes in two primary forms—anterior (AION)—affecting the optic disc or posterior (PION) affecting the optic nerve proximal to the disc. Spine surgery remains one of the largest sources of acute perioperative visual loss. Methods. We performed a 1:4 case–control analysis (by age and year of surgery) for patients with ION and those who didn’t develop ION following spine surgery at our institution. A systematic literature search of Medline, Embase, Scopus from inception to September 2017 as also performed. Results. We identified 12 cases from our institution. Comparison to 48 matched controls revealed fusion, higher number of operative levels, blood loss, and change in hemoglobin, hematocrit to be significantly associated with ION. Majority were diagnosed with PION (83%, 10/12) and had bilateral presentation (75%, 9/12). Only 30% patients (3/10) demonstrated improvement in visual acuity while the rest remained either unchanged (40%, 4/10) or worsened (20%, 2/10) at last follow-up. Literature review identified 182 cases from 42 studies. Posterior ischemic optic neuropathy (PION) was found in 58.7% (114/194) of cases, anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (AION) in 17% (33/19) and unspecified ION in 24% (47/194). PION was associated with higher odds of severe visual deficit at immediate presentation (odds ratio [OR]: 6.45, confidence interval [CI]: 1.04–54.3, P = 0.04) and last follow-up. Conclusion. PION is the most common cause of vision loss following spine surgery and causes more severe visual deficits compared with AION. Prone spine surgery especially multi-level fusions with longer operative time, higher blood loss, and intraoperative hypotension are most associated with the development of this devastating complication. Level of Evidence: 3

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.

AbstractCareful protocol selection is required during intraoperative three‐dimensional (3D) imaging for spine surgery to manage patient radiation dose and achieve clinical image quality. Radiation dose and image quality of a Medtronic O‐arm commonly used during spine surgery, and a Philips hybrid operating room equipped with XperCT C‐arm 3D cone‐beam CT (hCBCT) are compared. The mobile O‐arm (mCBCT) offers three different radiation dose settings (low, standard, and high), for four different patient sizes (small, medium, large, and extra large). The patient's radiation dose rate is constant during the entire 3D scan. In contrast, C‐CBCT spine imaging uses three different field of views (27, 37, and 48 cm) using automatic exposure control (AEC) that modulates the patient's radiation dose rate during the 3D scan based on changing patient thickness. hCBCT uses additional x‐ray beam filtration. Small, medium, and large trunk phantoms designed to mimic spine and soft tissue were imaged to assess radiation dose and image quality of the two systems. The estimated measured “patient” dose for the small, medium, and large phantoms imaged by the mCBCT considering all the dose settings ranged from 9.4–27.6 mGy, 8.9–33.3 mGy, and 13.8–40.6 mGy, respectively. The “patient” dose values for the same phantoms imaged with hCBCT were 2.8–4.6 mGy, 5.7–10.0 mGy, and 11.0–15.2 mGy. The CNR for the small, medium, and large phantoms was 2.9 to 3.7, 2.0 to 3.0, and 2.5 to 2.6 times higher with the hCBCT system, respectively. Hounsfield unit accuracy, noise, and uniformity of hCBCT exceeded the performance of the mCBCT; spatial resolution was comparable. Added x‐ray beam filtration and AEC capability achieved clinical image quality for intraoperative spine surgery at reduced radiation dose to the patient in comparison to a reference O‐arm system without these capabilities.