Citations

Study Design: Retrospective database review. Objectives: The incidence and risk factors for surgical delay of multilevel spine fusion for adult spinal deformity (ASD), and the complications corresponding therewith, remain unknown. The objectives of this study are to assess the incidence and risk factors for unexpected delay of elective multilevel spinal fusions on the date of surgery as well as the postoperative complications associated with these delays. Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of the ACS-NSQIP database on patients undergoing elective spinal instrumentation of greater than 7 levels for ASD between the years 2005 and 2015. Preoperative risk factors for delay and postoperative complications were compared between the cohorts of patients with and without surgical delays. Results: Multivariate analysis of 1570 (15.6%) patients identified advanced age, male sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Class 4, and history of smoking as independent risk factors for delay. Patients experiencing surgical delay demonstrated longer operative times, increased intraoperative bleeding, longer hospitalizations, and significantly higher rates of postoperative complications. Patients experiencing delay demonstrated an almost 7-fold increase in mortality rate (3.4% vs 0.5%, P < .001). Conclusions: Delays in elective surgical care for spinal deformity are negatively related to patient outcomes. Advanced age, male sex, increased ASA class, and a history of smoking cigarettes place patients at risk for surgical delay of multilevel spinal fusion. Patients experiencing surgical delay are at higher risk for postoperative complications, including a 7-fold increase in mortality. These findings suggest that ASD surgery should be postponed in patients experiencing a delay, until modifiable risk factors can be medically optimized, and perhaps postponed indefinitely in those with nonmodifiable risk factors.

Study Design: Retrospective case series. Objective: Sacral insufficiency fracture is a rare and serious complication following lumbar spine instrumented fusion. The purpose of this study was to describe the patient characteristics, presentation, evaluation, treatment options, and outcomes for patients with sacral insufficiency fracture after short-segment lumbosacral fusion. Methods: Six patients from our institutional database and 16 patients from literature review were identified with a sacral insufficiency fracture after short-segment (L4-S1 or L5-S1) lumbar fusion within 1 year of surgery. Results: Patients were 55% female with a mean age of 58 years and body mass index of 30 kg/m 2 . Osteoporosis or osteopenia was the most common comorbidity (85%). Half of patients sustained a sacral fracture after surgery from a posterior approach, while the others had anterior or anterior-posterior surgery. Mean time to fracture was 42 days with patients clinically presenting with new sacral pain (86%), radiculopathy (60%), or neurologic deficit (5%). Ultimately, 73% of patients underwent operative fixation often involving extension of the construct (75%) and fusion to the pelvis (69%). Men ( P = .02) and patients with new radicular pain or neurologic deficit ( P = .01) were more likely to undergo revision surgical treatment while women over 50 years of age were more likely to be treated conservatively ( P = .003). Conclusions: Spine surgeons should monitor for sacral insufficiency fracture as a source of new-onset pain in the postoperative period in patients with a short segment fusion to the sacrum. The recognition of this complication should prompt an assessment of bone health and management of underlying bone fragility.

OBJECTIVE The goal of this study was to compare different recognized definitions of osteoporosis in patients with degenerative lumbar spine pathology undergoing elective spinal fusion surgery to determine which patient population should be considered for preoperative optimization. METHODS A retrospective review of patients in whom lumbar spine surgery was planned at 2 academic medical centers was performed, and the rate of osteoporosis was compared based on different recognized definitions. Assessments were made based on dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA), CT Hounsfield units (HU), trabecular bone score (TBS), and fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX). The rate of osteoporosis was compared based on different definitions: 1) the WHO definition (T-score ≤ −2.5) at total hip or spine; 2) CT HU of < 110; 3) National Bone Health Alliance (NBHA) guidelines; and 4) “expanded spine” criteria, which includes patients meeting NBHA criteria and/or HU < 110, and/or “degraded” TBS in the setting of an osteopenic T-score. Inclusion criteria were adult patients with a DXA scan of the total hip and/or spine performed within 1 year and a lumbar spine CT scan within 6 months of the physician visit. RESULTS Two hundred forty-four patients were included. The mean age was 68.3 years, with 70.5% female, 96.7% Caucasian, and the mean BMI was 28.8. Fracture history was reported in 53.8% of patients. The proportion of patients identified with osteoporosis on DXA, HUs, NBHA guidelines, and the authors’ proposed “expanded spine” criteria was 25.4%, 36.5%, 75%, and 81.9%, respectively. Of the patients not identified with osteoporosis on DXA, 31.3% had osteoporosis based on HU, 55.1% had osteoporosis with NBHA, and 70.4% had osteoporosis with expanded spine criteria (p < 0.05), with poor correlations among the different assessment tools. CONCLUSIONS Limitations in the use of DXA T-scores alone to diagnose osteoporosis in patients with lumbar spondylosis has prompted interest in additional methods of evaluating bone health in the spine, such as CT HU, TBS, and FRAX, to inform guidelines that aim to reduce fracture risk. However, no current osteoporosis assessment was developed with a focus on improving outcomes in spinal surgery. Therefore, the authors propose an expanded spine definition for osteoporosis to identify a more comprehensive cohort of patients with potential poor bone health who could be considered for preoperative optimization, although further study is needed to validate these results in terms of clinical outcomes.

OBJECTIVE Opportunistic Hounsfield unit (HU) determination from CT imaging has been increasingly used to estimate bone mineral density (BMD) in conjunction with assessments from dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA). The authors sought to compare the effect of teriparatide on HUs across different regions in the pelvis, sacrum, and lumbar spine, as a surrogate measure for the effects of teriparatide on lumbosacropelvic instrumentation. METHODS A single-institution retrospective review of patients who had been treated with at least 6 months of teriparatide was performed. All patients had at least baseline DXA as well as pre- and post-teriparatide CT imaging. HUs were measured in the pedicle, lamina, and vertebral body of the lumbar spine, in the sciatic notch, and at the S1 and S2 levels at three different points (ilium, sacral body, and sacral ala). RESULTS Forty patients with an average age of 67 years underwent a mean of 20 months of teriparatide therapy. Mean HUs of the lumbar lamina, pedicles, and vertebral body were significantly different from each other before teriparatide treatment: 343 ± 114, 219 ± 89.2, and 111 ± 48.1, respectively (p < 0.001). Mean HUs at the S1 level for the ilium, sacral ala, and sacral body were also significantly different from each other: 124 ± 90.1, −10.7 ± 61.9, and 99.1 ± 72.1, respectively (p < 0.001). The mean HUs at the S2 level for the ilium and sacral body were not significantly different from each other, although the mean HU at the sacral ala (−11.9 ± 52.6) was significantly lower than those at the ilium and sacral body (p = 0.003 and 0.006, respectively). HU improvement occurred in most regions following teriparatide treatment. In the lumbar spine, the mean lamina HU increased from 343 to 400 (p < 0.001), the mean pedicle HU increased from 219 to 242 (p = 0.04), and the mean vertebral body HU increased from 111 to 134 (p < 0.001). There were also significant increases in the S1 sacral body (99.1 to 130, p < 0.05), S1 ilium (124 vs 165, p = 0.01), S1 sacral ala (−10.7 vs 3.68, p = 0.04), and S2 sacral body (168 vs 189, p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS There was significant regional variation in lumbar and sacropelvic HUs, with most regions significantly increasing following teriparatide treatment. The sacropelvic area had lower HU values than the lumbar spine, more regional variation, and a higher degree of correlation with BMD as measured on DXA. While teriparatide treatment resulted in HUs > 110 in the majority of the lumbosacral spine, the HUs in the sacral ala remained suggestive of severe osteoporosis, which may limit the effectiveness of fixation in this region.

The management of thoracolumbar burst fractures is controversial with no universally accepted treatment algorithm. Several classification and scoring systems have been developed to assist in surgical decision-making. The most widely accepted are the Thoracolumbar Injury Classification and Severity Score (TLICS) and AOSpine Thoracolumbar Injury Classification Score (TL AOSIS) with both systems designed to provide a simple objective scoring criteria to guide the surgical or nonsurgical management of complex injury patterns. When used in the evaluation and treatment of thoracolumbar burst fractures, both of these systems result in safe and consistent patient care. However, there are important differences between the 2 systems, specifically in the evaluation of the complete burst fractures (AOSIS A4) and patients with transient neurological deficits (AOSIS N1). In these circumstances, the AOSpine system may more accurately capture and characterize injury severity, providing the most refined guidance for optimal treatment. With respect to surgical approach, these systems provide a framework for decision-making based on patient neurology and the status of the posterior tension band. Here we propose an operative treatment algorithm based on these fracture characteristics as well as the level of injury.

Study Design: Retrospective cohort study. Objectives: Studies in the lumbar spine suggest a correlation between sarcopenia and worse patient outcomes. The purpose of this study was to determine whether paraspinal Goutalier grade of fat degeneration is associated with patient-reported outcomes in patients undergoing anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). Methods: We performed a retrospective review of a prospective cohort of patients undergoing 1- to 3-level ACDF at a single institution between the years 2011-2014. We utilized preoperative magnetic resonance images to classify patients into Goutalier grades. Patient-reported outcomes, including Neck Disability Index (NDI), RAND score, and EQ-5D score were collected and analyzed according to patients’ Goutalier grade. Results: We identified 69 patients for inclusion. A total of 29 patients were classified as Goutalier 0-1 (group 1), 29 were Goutalier 1.5-2 (group 2), and 11 were Goutalier 2.5-4.0 (group 3). All Goutalier groups experienced significant improvement in all 3 outcome scores. Average postoperative NDI scores were 25.3 in group 1, 13.9 in group 2, and 25.1 in group 3 ( P = .02). The percentage of patients in each group reporting worse disability after surgery was 17.2%, 3.3%, and 9.1%, respectively ( P = .05). No statistically significant difference was seen between groups in postoperative EQ-5D ( P = .07) or RAND scores ( P > .05). Conclusions: The present study is the first to assess the association between cervical paraspinal muscle Goutalier grade and patient-reported outcomes following ACDF. Based on our study, patients with worse cervical paraspinal degeneration may benefit from improved symptom relief in comparison to patients with a lesser degree of degeneration undergoing ACDF.

Mini We compared the sensitivity and specificity of peri-implant tissue culture to the vortexing–sonication technique for the diagnosis of spinal implant infection (SII). Lower thresholds of sonicate fluid culture positivity showed increased sensitivity with maintained specificity. We recommend a threshold of 20 CFU/10 mL for sonicate culture positivity for the diagnosis of SII. Study Design. This is a retrospective study comparing the diagnosis of spinal implant infection (SII) by peri-implant tissue culture to vortexing–sonication of retrieved spinal implants. Objective. We hypothesized that vortexing–sonication would be more sensitive than peri-implant tissue culture. Summary of Background Data. We previously showed implant vortexing–sonication followed by culture to be more sensitive than standard peri-implant tissue culture for diagnosing of SII. In this follow-up study, we analyzed the largest sample size available in the literature to compare these two culture methods and evaluated thresholds for positivity for sonicate fluid for SII diagnosis. Methods. We compared peri-implant tissue culture to the vortexing–sonication technique which samples bacterial biofilm on the surface of retrieved spinal implants. We evaluated different thresholds for sonicate fluid positivity and assessed the sensitivity and specificity of the two culture methods for the diagnosis of SII. Results. A total of 152 patients were studied. With more than 100 colony forming units (CFU)/10 mL as a threshold for sonicate fluid culture positivity, there were 46 patients with SII. The sensitivities of peri-implant tissue and sonicate fluid culture were 65.2% and 79.6%; the specificities were 88.7% and 93.4%, respectively. With more than 50 CFU/10 mL as a threshold, there were 50 patients with SII. The sensitivities of peri-implant tissue and sonicate fluid culture were 68.0% and 76.0%; the specificities were 92.2% for both methods. Finally, with more than or equal to 20 CFU/10 mL as a threshold, there were 52 patients with SII. The sensitivities of peri-implant tissue and sonicate fluid culture were 69.2% and 82.7%; the specificities were 94.0% and 92.0%, respectively. Conclusion. Implant sonication followed by culture is a sensitive and specific method for the diagnosis of SII. Lower thresholds for defining sonicate fluid culture positivity allow for increased sensitivity with a minimal decrease in specificity, enhancing the clinical utility of implant sonication. Level of Evidence: 4