Citations

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.

OBJECTIVE This study examined the extent to which preoperative depression predicts dysphagia after cervical spine surgery. METHODS A prospectively collected multi-institutional quality registry was retrospectively reviewed. Patients undergoing cervical surgery were categorized based on preoperative depression, and correlations with pre- and postoperative Eating Assessment Tool-10 (EAT-10) dysphagia questionnaire scores were assessed. Mixed-effects logistic regressions were performed to assess the impact of preoperative depression on the incidence of dysphagia. RESULTS Of 2002 patients meeting inclusion criteria, 524 (26%) reported having preoperative depression. Depression was associated with a higher incidence of dysphagia at baseline (25% vs 12%, p < 0.001) and at 1 (62% vs 54%, p = 0.038), 3 (36% vs 26%, p < 0.001), and 12 months (36% vs 22%, p < 0.001) postoperatively. Including baseline dysphagia as a fixed effect, multivariable analysis revealed that depression is not a significant independent predictor of postoperative dysphagia at 1 (OR 1.14, p = 0.5), 3 (OR 1.09, p = 0.6), or 12 months (OR 1.27, p = 0.2). Patients with depression and no baseline dysphagia (395 of 524) were significantly more likely to report new dysphagia at 12 months (26% vs 18%, p = 0.006), but not at 1 (53% vs 52%, p = 0.7) or 3 months (28% vs 22%, p = 0.06). The average change in EAT-10 scores between baseline and 12 months was significantly worse in patients with preoperative depression and no baseline dysphagia (2.552 [SD 5.041] vs 1.634 [SD 4.095], p < 0.001). Post hoc multivariable analyses excluding those with baseline dysphagia did not significantly affect the results. CONCLUSIONS Although patients with preoperative depression report dysphagia more often at baseline and at 1, 3, and 12 months after cervical surgery, preoperative depression is not an independent predictor of postoperative dysphagia. Preoperative depression may be valuable to consider as a risk factor for developing dysphagia after cervical surgery, but the heightened dysphagia risk in patients with depression may be attributed to secondary factors associated with depression such as comorbid conditions.

Background The natural history of asymptomatic moderate or severe aortic regurgitation (AR) remains uncertain, with conflicting reports about its progression and surgical timing. We aimed to quantify adverse outcomes under conservative management and evaluate the association of aortic valve replacement/repair (AVR) with mortality. Methods Systematic searches (inception–July 2025) identified cohort studies of asymptomatic moderate/severe AR. Random-effects models estimated pooled incidence rates of adverse events; fixed-effects models were used for hazard ratios (HRs) of AVR vs conservative management. Results Twenty-seven studies (4720 patients; mean age 49 years; mean follow-up 3.9 years) were included. Pooled incidence rates per 100 person-years were 1.75 (95% CI 1.27 to 2.41) for all-cause mortality, 1.29 for cardiac death, 0.29 for sudden death, 4.30 for new symptoms and 7.01 for AVR. Asymptomatic low left ventricular ejection fraction occurred in only 0.9 per 100 person-years. Mortality rates were more than double those of the general population across age groups—2.45 (1.90 to 3.18) per 100 person-years for cohorts with mean age ≥50 years versus 0.59 (0.29 to 1.21) for younger cohorts. Early AVR was associated with lower mortality (pooled HR 0.33; 95% CI 0.30 to 0.37). Conclusion Asymptomatic moderate/severe AR carries significant excess mortality irrespective of age, contradicting its historically benign reputation. Given the rarity of asymptomatic LV dysfunction, earlier intervention guided by more sensitive markers of LV damage may improve outcomes, although heterogeneity and study quality warrant cautious interpretation. PROSPERO registration number CRD42024522683.

Importance Peripheral neuropathy, defined as damage to peripheral nerves, affects approximately 1% of adults worldwide. More than 200 causes of peripheral neuropathy exist, with symptoms ranging in severity from mild toe numbness to debilitating symptoms that can require a wheelchair. Diabetes is the most common cause of neuropathy, affecting approximately 206 million people worldwide. Observations Peripheral neuropathy is typically length-dependent, which means that symptoms appear in the longest nerve axons (toes) and progress proximally over time. Peripheral neuropathy is typically symmetric and affects sensory axons more than motor axons. Diabetic neuropathy, which is often associated with both sensory symptoms, such as pain, tingling, or numbness; mild weakness; and autonomic symptoms, such as orthostatic hypotension, accounts for more than 50% of peripheral neuropathy in Western populations. Other causes of neuropathy include hereditary causes, such as Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease, toxic neuropathy from medications (chemotherapies [eg, cisplatin, paclitaxel, vincristine], amiodarone, or HIV nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors [eg, stavudine, zalcitabine]); alcohol; vitamin deficiencies such as vitamin B 12 ; and monoclonal gammopathies. Up to 27% of adults with neuropathy have no identifiable etiology for their neuropathy after diagnostic testing. Recommended initial testing includes blood glucose (for diabetes), serum B 12 with metabolites (methylmalonic acid with or without homocysteine), and serum protein electrophoresis with immunofixation (for monoclonal gammopathies). First-line medications for neuropathic pain are the α2-δ calcium channel subunit ligands, such as gabapentin and pregabalin; serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, such as duloxetine and venlafaxine; and tricyclic antidepressants, such as amitryptyline and nortriptyline. Pain often persists despite medical management. At least a 50% reduction in pain was observed in 38% of those with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy receiving 1200 mg of gabapentin daily. Combination drug therapies for neuropathic pain may provide added benefit. The prognosis of peripheral neuropathy depends on its underlying cause, but complete reversal of nerve damage is uncommon even in cases for which there are available treatments. Conclusions and Relevance Peripheral neuropathy affects approximately 1% of adults worldwide and may cause sensory, motor, and autonomic symptoms. Diabetes is the most common cause of peripheral neuropathy in Western countries. First-line therapies for neuropathic pain include gabapentin, pregabalin, duloxetine, and amitriptyline.

ABSTRACT Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) are generally avoided in patients with a history of pancreatitis due to concerns about potential associated risk of acute pancreatitis (AP). However, their role in managing severe hypertriglyceridemia (HTG) remains underexplored. We present a case of a 42-year-old woman with recurrent HTG-induced AP who was initiated on GLP-1RA and achieved 15% weight loss, sustained triglyceride reduction, and remained AP-free while on that therapy. This case highlights a potential new role for the use of GLP-1RAs for HTG-AP.

ABSTRACT Common variable immunodeficiency (CVID) is a primary immunodeficiency disorder causing hypogammaglobulinemia. Although rare, nodular regenerative hyperplasia is the most common liver complication in CVID, which can progress to noncirrhotic portal hypertension. We report a case of a young male with CVID presenting with recurrent parastomal bleeding secondary to noncirrhotic portal hypertension from CVID-associated nodular regenerative hyperplasia.

Purpose of the review With the widespread integration of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) into clinical practice, understanding its ethical, economic, and patient-centered implications has become increasingly important. This review critically examines recent evidence across these domains to illuminate challenges and opportunities for advancing transparent, ethical, patient-centered, and value-based neuromodulation practice. Recent findings Recent analyses reveal persistent challenges with bias, conflicts of interest, and selective outcome reporting in neuromodulation research. Studies demonstrate significant disparities in access to SCS across racial and socioeconomic groups and highlight new ethical considerations associated with artificial intelligence–enabled and informed treatment in neuromodulation. Contemporary randomized trials support clinically meaningful improvements in pain, functionality, psychological outcomes, and other patient-centered outcomes, although durability remains inconsistent because of the potential for therapy habituation or adverse events. Despite high initial upfront costs, evaluations of SCS cost-effectiveness across healthcare systems generally favor SCS over conventional medical management when assessed over multiyear periods, with differential economic benefits observed based on the type of waveform and type of national healthcare system. Summary While current evidence supports the clinical and long-term economic benefits of SCS in defined clinical contexts and indications, gaps in research transparency, equitable access to care, economic considerations, and durability of effectiveness persist.