Preoperative Zung depression scale predicts patient satisfaction independent of the extent of improvement after revision lumbar surgery

Background contextPatient satisfaction ratings are increasingly being used in health care as a proxy for quality and are becoming the focal point for several quality improvement initiatives. Affective disorders, such as depression, have been shown to influence patient-reported outcomes and self-interpretation of health status. We hypothesize that patient psychiatric profiles influence reported satisfaction with care, independent of surgical effectiveness.PurposeTo assess the predictive value of preoperative depression on patient satisfaction after revision surgery for same-level recurrent stenosis.Study designRetrospective cohort study.Patient sampleFifty-three patients undergoing a revision surgery for symptomatic same-level recurrent stenosis.Outcome measuresPatient-reported outcome measures were assessed using an outcomes questionnaire that included questions on health state values (EuroQol-5D [EQ-5D]), disability (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI]), pain (visual analog scale [VAS]), depression (Zung self-rating depression scale), and Short Form 12 (SF-12) physical and mental component scores (PCS and MCS). Patient satisfaction was dichotomized as either “YES” or “NO” on whether they were satisfied with their surgical outcome 2 years after the surgery.MethodsA total of fifty-three patients undergoing revision neural decompression and instrumented fusion for same-level recurrent stenosis-associated back and leg pain were included in this study. Preoperative Zung self-rating depression score (ZDS), education status, comorbidities, and postoperative satisfaction with surgical care and outcome was assessed for all patients. Baseline and 2-year VAS for leg pain (VAS-LP), VAS for low back pain (VAS-BP), ODI, SF-12 PCS and MCS, and health-state utility (EQ-5D) were assessed. Factors associated with patient satisfaction after surgery were assessed via multivariate logistic regression analysis.ResultsTwo years after surgery, a significant improvement was reported in all outcome measures: VAS-BP (5±2.94 vs. 9.28±1, p<.001), VAS-LP (3.43±2.95 vs. 9.5±0.93, p<.001), ODI (21.75±12.07 vs. 36.01±6, p<.001), SF-12 PCS (32.30±11.01 vs. 25.13±5.84, p<.001), SF-12 MCS (47.48±10.96 vs. 34.91±12.77, p<.001), EQ-5D (0.60±0.31 vs. 0.18±0.22, p<.001), and ZDS (37.52±11.98 vs. 49.90±10.88, p<.001). Independent of postoperative improvement in pain and disability (surgical effectiveness), increasing preoperative Zung depression score was significantly associated with patient dissatisfaction 2 years after revision lumbar surgery (Odds ratio=0.67 [confidence interval: 0.38, 0.87], p<.001).ConclusionsOur study suggests that independent of the surgical effectiveness, the extent of preoperative depression influences the reported patient satisfaction after revision lumbar surgery. Quality improvement initiatives using patient satisfaction as a proxy for quality should account for the patients' baseline depression as potential confounders.     

Revision lumbar fusions have higher rates of reoperation and result in worse clinical outcomes compared to primary lumbar fusions

BACKGROUND CONTEXTIndications for revision lumbar fusion are variable, but include recurrent stenosis (RS), adjacent segment disease (ASD), and pseudarthrosis. The efficacy of revision lumbar fusion has been well established, but their outcomes compared to primary procedures is not well documented.PURPOSEThe purpose of this study was to compares surgical and clinical outcomes between (1) revision and primary lumbar fusion, (2) revision lumbar fusion based on indication (ASD, pseudarthrosis, or RS), and (3) revision lumbar fusion based on whether the index procedure included an isolated decompression or decompression with fusion.STUDY DESIGN/SETTINGRetrospective single-institution cohort study.PATIENT SAMPLEFour thousand six hundred seventy-one consecutive lumbar fusions from 2011 to 2021, of which 892 (23.6%) were revision procedures. The indication for revision procedures included 502 (56.3%) for ASD, 153 (17.2%) for pseudarthrosis, and 237 (26.6%) for RS. Of the 892 revision procedures, 694 (77.8%) underwent an index fusion while 198 (22.2%) underwent an index decompression without fusion.OUTCOME MEASURESHospital readmissions, all-cause reoperation, need for subsequent revision and patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) at baseline, 3-months postoperatively, and 1-year postoperatively, including the Mental Health Component score (MCS-12) and Physical Health Component score (PCS-12) of the Short Form 12 survey, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for Back and Leg pain.METHODSPatient demographics, comorbidities, surgical characteristics, and outcomes were collected from electronic medical records. Twenty-eight percent of patients had preoperative and postoperative PROMs. A delta PROM score was calculated for the 3-month and 1-year postoperative timepoints, which was the change from the preoperative to postoperative value. Univariate comparisons were performed to compare revision fusions to primary fusions. Multivariate logistic regression was performed for all-cause reoperation and subsequent revision surgery, while multivariate linear regression was performed for ?PROMs at 3-months and 1-year. Revision procedures were then separately regrouped based on indication for revision fusion and whether they underwent a fusion for their index procedure. Univariate comparisons and multivariate linear regressions for ?PROMs were then repeated based on the new groupings.RESULTSThere was no difference in hospital readmission rate (5.38% vs. 4.60%, p=.372) or length of stay (4.10 days vs. 3.94 days, p=.129) between revision and primary lumbar fusion, but revision fusions had a higher rate of all-cause reoperation (16.1% vs. 11.2%, p<.001) and subsequent revision (13.7% vs. 9.71%, p=.001), which was confirmed on multivariate logistic regression (Odds Ratio (OR): 1.42, p=.001 and OR: 1.37, p=.007, respectively). On multivariate analysis, a revision procedure was an independent risk factor for worse improvement ?ODI, ?VAS Back, ?VAS Leg, and ?PCS-12 and 1-year postoperatively. Regardless of the indication for revision lumbar fusion, patients significantly improved in the 3-month and 1-year postoperative PCS-12, ODI, VAS Back, and VAS Leg, with the exception of the 3-month PCS-12 for pseudarthrosis (p=.620). Patients undergoing revision for ASD had significantly worse 1-year postoperative PCS-12 (32.3 vs. Pseudarthrosis: 35.6 and RS: 37.0, p=.026), but there were no differences in ?PROMs. There was no difference in hospital readmission, all-cause reoperation, or subsequent revision based on whether a patient had an index lumbar fusion or isolated decompression. Multivariate linear regression analysis found that a surgical indication of pseudarthrosis was a significant predictor of decreased improvement in 3-month ?VAS Leg (ref: ASD, β=2.26, p=.036), but having an index fusion did not significantly predict worse improvement in ?PROMs when compared to isolated decompressions.CONCLUSIONSRevision lumbar fusions had a higher rate of reoperation and subsequent revision surgery when compared to primary lumbar fusions, but there were no difference in hospital readmission rates. Patients undergoing revision lumbar fusion experience improvements in all patient reported outcome measures, but their baseline, postoperative, and magnitude of improvement are worse than primary procedures. Regardless of whether the lumbar fusion is a primary or revision procedure, all patients have significant improvements in pain, disability and physical function. Further, the indication for the revision procedure is not correlated with the expected magnitude of improvement in patient reported outcomes. Finally, no differences in baseline, postoperative, and ?PROMs for revision fusions were identified when stratifying by whether the patient had an index decompression or fusion.     

Relationship of the character of rod fractures on outcomes following long thoracolumbar fusion to the sacrum for adult spinal deformity

BACKGROUND CONTEXTRod fractures (RF) and pseudarthrosis are a frequent occurrence after adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery and may be problematic. However, not all RF signal nonunion and cause clinical concern. An improved understanding of the sequelae after RF occurrence is valuable for further management.PURPOSETo characterize the radiographic findings, clinical outcomes, and revision rates between patients who developed unilateral RF (URF) and bilateral RF (BRF) following thoracolumbar posterior spinal fusions to the sacrum for ASD and identify patient characteristics associated with clinically significant RF that lead to subsequent revision surgeries and detection of nonunion.STUDY DESIGN/SETTINGA retrospective single-center cohort study was performed.PATIENT SAMPLEPatients undergoing long-construct posterior spinal fusions to the sacrum performed at a single institution from 2004 to 2014 and developed a RF postoperatively were included.OUTCOME MEASURESPatient demographics, radiographic parameters, surgical data, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Scoliosis Research Society-22 (SRS-22), and revision rates.METHODSInclusion criteria were ASD patients age >18 who had ≥5 vertebrae instrumented and fused posteriorly to the sacrum and development of RF. Data were compared among patients: who developed unilateral-nondisplaced RF (UNRF), unilateral-displaced RF (UDRF), bilateral-nondisplaced RF and bilateral-displaced RF (BDRF) at baseline and follow-up. ODI and SRS-22 scores were assessed at baseline, 1 year postoperatively, the time of RF occurrence, and latest follow-up.RESULTSOf 526 patients who met inclusion criteria, 96 (18.3%) developed RF (URF n=70 [73%]; BRF n=26 [27%]). Preoperative demographics and surgical parameters were similar between the groups. BRF patients had substantial loss of sagittal correction from 1-year postoperatively to the time of RF, including loss of sagittal vertical axis (4.8 cm vs. 2.2 cm; p<.001), loss of lumbar lordosis (14.8° vs. 4.9°; p=.010) and loss of pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis mismatch (PI-LL) mismatch (5.0° vs. 14.6°; p=.020) compared with those of URF patients. The BDRF group had more loss of ODI scores (13.4 vs. 4.2; p=.013), SRS pain score (0.8 vs. 0.2; p=.024), SRS function score (0.3 vs. 0; p=.020) and SRS subscore (0.4 vs. 0.1; p=.148) from 1-year postoperatively to the time of RF and underwent revision surgery more often than the UNRF group (87.5% vs. 4.8%; p<.0001). At final follow-up (median 2.8 years, range 1–10.3 years after RF detection), URF patients who did not undergo revision surgeries still maintained equivalent sagittal alignment correction (sagittal vertical axis, LL and PI-LL; all p>.05) and had similar, not worse, mean ODI scores, SRS Subscore and SRS pain compared with the time at RF and 1-year follow-up.CONCLUSIONSRF are not uncommon after ASD operations. Asymptomatic, UNRF in our study did not jeopardize clinical outcomes or radiographic alignment parameters and, in most cases, did not represent a nonunion, as opposed to BRF. BRF patients exhibited loss of sagittal correction, loss of clinical outcome improvements, as measured by ODI, SRS pain and SRS Subscore at the time of RF, and were revised more often than URF patients.     

Determination of minimum clinically important difference (MCID) in pain,disability, and quality of life after revision fusion for symptomatic pseudoarthrosis

Background contextSpinal surgical outcome studies rely on patient reported outcome (PRO) measurements to assess the effect of treatment. A shortcoming of these questionnaires is that the extent of improvement in their numerical scores lacks a direct clinical meaning. As a result, the concept of minimum clinically important difference (MCID) has been used to measure the critical threshold needed to achieve clinically relevant treatment effectiveness. Post hoc anchor-based MCID methods have not been applied to the surgical treatment for pseudoarthrosis.PurposeTo determine the most appropriate MCID values for visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Short Form (SF)-12 physical component score (PCS), and European Quality of Life 5-Dimensions (EQ-5D) in patients undergoing revision lumbar arthrodesis for symptomatic pseudoarthrosis.Study design/ settingRetrospective cohort study.MethodsIn 47 patients undergoing revision fusion for pseudoarthrosis-associated back pain, PRO measures of back pain (BP-VAS), ODI, physical quality of life (SF-12 PCS), and general health utility (EQ-5D) were assessed preoperatively and 2 years postoperatively. Four subjective post hoc anchor-based MCID calculation methods were used to calculate MCID (average change; minimum detectable change; change difference; and receiver operating characteristic curve analysis) for two separate anchors (health transition index (HTI) of SF-36 and satisfaction index).ResultsAll patients were available for a 2-year PRO assessment. Two years after surgery, a significant improvement was observed for all PROs; Mean change score: BP-VAS (2.3±2.6; p<.001), ODI (8.6%±13.2%; p<.001), SF-12 PCS (4.0±6.1; p=.01), and EQ-5D (0.18±0.19; p<.001). The four MCID calculation methods generated a wide range of MCID values for each of the PROs (BP-VAS: 2.0–3.2; ODI: 4.0%–16.6%; SF-12 PCS: 3.2–6.1; and EQ-5D: 0.14–0.24). There was no difference in response between anchors for any patient, suggesting that HTI and satisfaction anchors are equivalent in this patient population. The wide variations in calculated MCID values between methods precluded any ability to reliably determine what the true value is for meaningful change in this disease state.ConclusionsUsing subjective post hoc anchor-based methods of MCID calculation, MCID after revision fusion for pseudoarthrosis varies by as much as 400% per PRO based on the calculation technique. MCID was suggested to be as low as 2 points for ODI and 3 points for SF-12. These wide variations and low values of MCID question the face validity of such calculation techniques, especially when applied to heterogeneous disease and patient groups with a multitude of psychosocial confounders such as failed back syndromes. The variability of MCID thresholds observed in our study of patients undergoing revision lumbar fusion for pseudoarthrosis raises further questions to whether ante hoc or Delphi methods may be a more valid and consistent technique to define clinically meaningful, patient-centered changes in PRO measurements.     

Occult infection in pseudarthrosis revision after spinal fusion

Background ContextPseudarthrosis after attempted spinal fusion is yet not sufficiently understood and presents a surgical challenge. Occult infections are sometimes observed in patients with pseudarthrosis and no inflammatory signs of infection. The prevalence of such occult infection and its association with patient demographics and inflammatory markers are largely unknown.PurposeTo determine the prevalence of unexpected low-grade infection in spinal pseudarthrosis revision surgery, and to evaluate whether such infection is associated with patient demographics and inflammatory markers.Study DesignRetrospective observational study.Patient SampleOne-hundred-and-twenty-eight patients who underwent thoracolumbar revision surgery due to presumed aseptic pseudarthrosis after spinal instrumentation.Outcome MeasuresCulture-positive infections or noninfectious pseudarthrosis.MethodsSamples were routinely taken for microbiological examination from all adults (n=152) who underwent revision surgery for presumed aseptic thoracolumbar pseudarthrosis between 2014 and 2019. A full intraoperative microbiological workup (at least three intraoperative tissue samples) was done for 128 (84%) patients, and these patients were included in further analyses. Patient characteristics, medical history, inflammatory markers, and perioperative data were compared between those with and without microbiologically-confirmed infection based on samples obtained during pseudarthrosis revision.ResultsThe microbiological workup confirmed infection in 13 of 128 cases (10.2%). The predominant pathogen was Cutibacterium acnes (46.2%), followed by coagulase-negative staphylococci (38.5%). The presence of infection was associated with the body mass index (30.9±4.7 kg/m² [infected] vs. 28.2±5.6 kg/m² [controls], p=.049), surgery in the thoracolumbar region (46% vs. 18%, p=.019), and a slightly higher serum C-reactive protein level on admission (9.4±8.0 mg/L vs. 5.7±7.1 mg/L, p=.031). Occult infection was not associated with age, sex, prior lumbar surgeries, number of fused lumbar levels, American Society of Anesthesiologist score, Charlson Comorbidity Index, presence of diabetes mellitus, and smoking status.ConclusionsOccult infections were found in 10% of patients undergoing pseudarthrosis revision after spinal fusion, even without preoperative clinical suspicion. Occult infection was associated with higher body mass index, fusions including the thoracolumbar junction, and slightly higher C-reactive protein levels. Intraoperative microbiological samples should be routinely obtained to exclude or identify occult infection in all revision surgeries for symptomatic pseudarthrosis of the spine, as this information can be used to guide postoperative antibiotic treatment.     

Poor muscle health and low preoperative ODI are independent predictors for slower achievement of MCID after minimally invasive decompression

Background ContextAlthough some previous studies have analyzed predictors of nonimprovement, most of these have focused on demographic and clinical variables and have not accounted for radiological predictors. In addition, while several studies have examined the degree of improvement after decompression, there is less data on the rate of improvement.PurposeTo identify the risk factors and predictors (both radiological and nonradiological) for slower as well as nonachievement of minimal clinically important difference (MCID) after minimally invasive decompression.DesignRetrospective cohort.Patient SamplePatients who underwent minimally invasive decompression for degenerative lumbar spine conditions and had a minimum of 1-year follow up were included. Patients with preoperative Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) <20 were excluded.Outcome MeasureMCID achievement in ODI (cut off 12.8).MethodsPatients were stratified into two groups (achieved MCID, did not achieve MCID) at two timepoints (early ≤3 months, late ≥6 months). Nonradiological (age, gender, BMI, comorbidities, anxiety, depression, number of levels operated, preoperative ODI, preoperative back pain) and radiological (MRI – Schizas grading for stenosis, dural sac cross-sectional area, Pfirrmann grading for disc degeneration, psoas cross-sectional area and Goutallier grading, facet cyst/effusion; X-ray – spondylolisthesis, lumbar lordosis, spinopelvic parameters) variables were assessed with comparative analysis to identify risk factors and with multiple regression models to identify predictors for slower achievement of MCID (MCID not achieved by ≤3 months) and nonachievement of MCID (MCID not achieved at ≥6 months).ResultsA total of 338 patients were included. At ≤3 months, patients who did not achieve MCID had significantly lower preoperative ODI (40.1 vs 48.1, p<0.001) and worse psoas Goutallier grading (p=.048). At ≥6 months, patients who did not achieve MCID had significantly lower preoperative ODI (38 vs 47.5, p<.001), higher age (68 vs 63 years, p=.007), worse average L1-S1 Pfirrmann grading (3.5 vs 3.2, p=.035), and higher rate of pre-existing spondylolisthesis at the operated level (p=.047). When these and other probable risk factors were put into a regression model, low preoperative ODI (p=.002) and poor Goutallier grading (p=.042) at the early timepoint and low preoperative ODI (p<.001) at the late timepoint came out as independent predictors for MCID nonachievement.ConclusionAfter minimally invasive decompression, low preoperative ODI and poor muscle health are risk factors and predictors for slower achievement of MCID. For nonachievement of MCID, low preoperative ODI, higher age, greater disc degeneration, and spondylolisthesis are risk factors and low preoperative ODI is the only independent predictor.     

What is the role of dynamic cervical spine radiographs in predicting pseudarthrosis revision following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion?

Background ContextPostoperative dynamic radiographs are used to assess fusion status after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) with comparable accuracy to computed tomography (CT) scans.PurposeTo (1) determine if dynamic radiographs accurately predict pseudarthrosis revision in a cohort of largely asymptomatic patients who underwent ACDF, (2) determine how adjacent segment motion is affected by fusion status, and (3) analyze how clinical outcomes differ between patients with symptomatic and asymptomatic pseudarthrosis.Study DesignRetrospective cohort study.Patient SamplePatients ≥ 18 years who underwent primary one- to four-level ACDF at a single institution over a 10-year period.Outcome MeasuresInterspinous motion on preoperative and postoperative flexion-extension radiographs and preoperative and postoperative Visual Analogue Scale for Neck Pain (VAS Neck) and Arm Pain (VAS Arm), Neck Disability Index (NDI), Modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association scale (mJOA), Mental and Physical Component Scores of the Short-Form 12 (SF-12) Health Survey (MCS-12 and PCS-12)MethodsThe difference in spinous process motion between flexion and extension radiographs was used to determine motion at each level of the ACDF construct. Pseudarthrosis was defined as ≥ 1 mm spinous process motion on dynamic radiographs. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was generated to predict the probability of surgical revision for pseudarthrosis based on millimeters of interspinous motion at each instrumented level. Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) were used to assess the effect of pseudarthrosis on clinical outcomes. Alpha was set at p<.05.ResultsA total of 597 patients met inclusion criteria including 1,203 ACDF levels. Of those, 215 patients (36.0%) were diagnosed with a pseudarthrosis on dynamic radiographs with 29 patients (4.9%) requiring pseudarthrosis revision. ROC analysis identified a “cutoff” value of 1.00 mm of interspinous process motion for generating an optimal area under the curve (AUC). The negative predictive value (NPV) was 99.6%, whereas the positive predictive value (PPV) was 13.7%. When analyzing adjacent segment motion, the Δ supra-adjacent interspinous process motion (ISM) was significantly lower for patients with a superior construct pseudarthrosis (-1.06 mm vs. 1.80 mm, p<.001), whereas the Δ infra-adjacent level ISM was significantly lower for patients with an inferior construct pseudarthrosis (-1.21 mm vs. 2.15 mm, p<.001). Patients with a pseudarthrosis not requiring revision had worse postoperative NDI (29.3 vs. 23.4, p=.027), VAS Neck (3.40 vs. 2.63, p=.012), and VAS Arm (3.09 vs. 1.85, p=.001) scores at 3 months, but not 1-year, compared with patients who were fused. Patients requiring pseudarthrosis revision had higher 1-year postoperative NDI (38.0 vs. 23.7, p=.047) and lower 1-year postoperative Δ VAS Arm (-0.22 vs. -2.97, p=.016) scores.ConclusionsOne-year postoperative dynamic radiographs have a greater than 99% negative predictive value for identifying patients requiring pseudarthrosis revision, but they have a low positive predictive value. Most patients with a pseudarthrosis remain asymptomatic with similar 1-year postoperative patient-reported outcomes compared with patients without a pseudarthrosis.     

Outcomes of stand-alone anterior lumbar interbody fusion of L5–S1 using a novel implant with anterior plate fixation

Background ContextCompared with other approaches, anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) is believed to be more effective at restoring segmental lordosis and reducing risks of adjacent-segment disease. It remains controversial, however, whether ALIF improves global lumbar lordosis or influences pelvic parameters, possibly because of the heterogeneity of implants and levels studied.PurposeTo report clinical outcomes of stand-alone ALIF with anterior plate fixation for L5–S1 and to determine the effect on global lumbar lordosis and pelvic parameters.Study DesignThis is a retrospective case series.Patient SamplePatients that underwent isolated mini-ALIF with anterior plate fixation for L5–S1.Outcome MeasuresOswestry Disability Index (ODI), Short Form 12, lower back and legs pain on Visual Analog Scale, as well as spino-pelvic parameters.MethodsThe authors reviewed the records of all patients that underwent retroperitoneal mini-ALIF for single-level L5–S1 fusion between August 2012 and December 2016. A total of 129 patients were included, but 9 patients had incomplete preoperative radiographic data, and one patient had schizophrenia and was unable to respond to outcome questionnaires, leaving 119 patients eligible for outcome assessment. At a minimum follow-up of 1 year, seven patients refused to participate in the study or could not be reached, which left a final cohort of 112 patients.ResultsNine patients were reoperated without implant removal (four pseudarthrosis, two hematomas, one sepsis, one L4–L5 disc hernia, and one L4–L5 disc degeneration). At a mean of 20±9 months, all scores improved significantly from baseline values, with net improvement in ODI of 23.3±19.9. Multivariable analyses confirmed better postoperative ODI in patients that received 18° cages (β=−9.0, p=.017), but revealed no significant trends for net improvement in ODI. Comparison of preoperative and last follow-up radiographs revealed that global lumbar lordosis increased by 4.2±7.1° (p<.001), L5–S1 segmental lordosis increased by 11.8±6.7° (p<.001), and L4–L5 segmental lordosis decreased by 1.9±3.3° (p<.001). All pelvic parameters changed: pelvic incidence increased by 0.6±2.7° (p=.003), pelvic tilt decreased by 2.5±4.1° (p<.001) and sacral slope increased by 3.3±4.7° (p<.001).ConclusionsStand-alone mini-ALIF with anterior plate fixation for L5–S1 can change pelvic parameters while improving global and segmental lumbar lordosis. The procedure resulted in a fusion rate of 96% and comparable improvements in ODI to other studies.     

Stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of symptomatic adjacent segment degeneration following previous lumbar fusion

Background Context

Revision posterior decompression and fusion surgery for patients with symptomatic adjacent segment degeneration (ASD) is associated with significant morbidity and is technically challenging. The use of a stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) in patients with symptomatic ASD may prevent many of the complications associated with revision posterior surgery.

Preoperative Zung depression scale predicts outcomes in older patients undergoing short-segment fusion surgery for degenerative lumbar spinal disease

Purpose

To identify the relationship between depression measured by Zung depression rating scale (ZDRS) and postoperative outcomes (including the patients reported outcomes [PRO] and clinical outcomes) two years after short-segment fusion surgery for degenerative lumbar spinal disease in older patients (aged 75 years and older).

Methods

We enrolled patients who underwent short-segment fusion surgery for lumbar degenerative disease from May 2018 to June 2020. All patients were assessed for depression using the ZDRS. Patients were included in the depression group and not-depressed group based on their scores. Preoperative baseline data were collected on characteristics, comorbidities, laboratory data, pain levels (visual analogue scale [VAS]), functional status (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI]), and surgery-related variables. The primary outcomes were PRO measures, including VAS, ODI and satisfaction two years after lumbar fusion surgery. Other outcomes included postoperative complications, the length of stay, and reoperation. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify the risk factors for poor satisfaction.

Results

A total of 231 patients (201 in not-depressed and 30 in depressed group) were enrolled in this study. There were no significant differences between the two groups for baseline data. Depressed group had higher rates of choices for dissatisfaction (36.7% vs. 14.0%, p = 0.015), higher VAS scores of low back pain (2.8 ± 2.3 vs. 1.6 ± 1.7, p = 0.012), and worse functional status (31.5 ± 22.5 vs 21.8 ± 19.9, p = 0.015) than the not-depressed group. Depressed patients reported significantly higher rates of postoperative complications and readmissions. Multivariate regression analysis revealed that depression (p = 0.001) was independently associated with postoperative dissatisfaction.

Conclusion

Preoperative depression was a risk factor for postoperative dissatisfaction, worse functional status, readmission, and complications in older patients undergoing lumbar fusion surgery. Preoperative screening using the Zung depression scale helps inform decision-making when considering fusion surgery for patients aged 75 and older.

     

Timing of inpatient medical complications after adult spinal deformity surgery: early ambulation matters

BACKGROUNDThe substantial risk for medical complication after adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery is well known. However, the timing of medical complications during the inpatient stay have not been previously described. Accurate anticipation of complications and adverse events may improve patient counseling and postoperative management.PURPOSE(1) Describe the rate of medical complication and adverse events by postoperative day after ASD surgery and (2) determine whether early ambulation is protective for complications.STUDY DESIGN/SETTINGSingle institution retrospective cohort study.PATIENT SAMPLETwo hundred thirty-five patients with ASD who underwent posterior-only fusion of the lumbar spine (≥5 levels to the pelvis) between 2013 and 2020.OUTCOME MEASURESMedical complications, categorized per the International Spine Study Group-AO system (cardiopulmonary [CP], gastrointestinal [GI], central nervous system [CNS], infectious [nonsurgical site], and renal) and adverse events (postoperative blood transfusion, urinary retention, and electrolyte abnormalities).METHODSPatients were identified from an institutional ASD database. Outcome measures were classified by the first postoperative day the event was recognized. Demographics, year of surgery, surgical factors, radiographic parameters, surgical invasiveness (ASD-S Index), frailty (Modified Frailty Index-5 [mFI-5]), Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), smoking, preoperative opioid use, depression, and post-operative day of ambulation were assessed as risk factors for inpatient medical complications.RESULTSAfter exclusions of patients with incomplete medical chart data, 191 patients were available for analysis, mean age 66±10 y, BMI 28±5 kg/m2, PI-LL 24±20°, T1PA 28±13°. Inpatient medical complications occurred in 55 (28.8%) patients; adverse events occurred in 137 (71.7%). Length of stay was higher in patients with medical complications (mean 8.5±3.8 vs. 5.8±2.3 days, p<.001). However, for patients who had an adverse event, but no medical complication, LOS was comparable (p>.05). Most medical complications occurred by POD3 (58% of all complications). Risk (defined as the proportion of patients with that complication out of all inpatients that day) of CNS, CP, and GI complication peaked early in the postoperative course (CNS on POD1 [2.1% risk]; GI on POD2 [3.7%]; CP on POD3 [2.7%]). Risk for infectious and renal complications (infectious POD8 [2.7%]; renal POD7 [0.9%]) peaked later (Figure 1). On univariate analysis, patients with medical complications had higher rates of OSA (9.1% vs. 2.2%, p=.045), ASD-S (45.9 vs. 40.8, p=.04), max coronal cobb (46.9 vs. 36.7°, p=.003), ASA class (2.5 vs. 2.3, p=.01), and POD of ambulation (1.9 vs. 1.3, p=.01). On multivariate logistic regression (c-statistic 0.78), larger coronal cobb and later POD of ambulation were independent risk factors for complications (OR 1.04, 95% CI 1.01–1.07 and OR 2.3, 95% CI 1.2–4.7, respectively).CONCLUSIONSOur data may inform peri-operative management and patient expectations for hospitalization after ASD surgery. Early ambulation may reduce the risk of complications.     

Commentary: revision lumbar surgery and revisiting the role of preoperative depression screening

COMMENTARY ON: Adogwa O, Parker SL, Shau DN, et?al. Preoperative Zung Depression Scale predicts outcome after revision lumbar surgery for adjacent segment disease, recurrent stenosis, and pseudarthrosis. Spine J 2012;12:179-85 (in this issue).     

Lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis: factors associated with the decision to fuse

BACKGROUND CONTEXTThe indication to perform a fusion and decompression surgery as opposed to decompression alone for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis (LDS) remains controversial. A variety of factors are considered when deciding on whether to fuse, including patient demographics, radiographic parameters, and symptom presentation. Likely surgeon preference has an important influence as well.PURPOSEThe aim of this study was to assess factors associated with the decision of a Canadian academic spine surgeon to perform a fusion for LDS.STUDY DESIGN/SETTINGThis study is a retrospective analysis of patients prospectively enrolled in a multicenter Canadian study that was designed to evaluate the assessment and surgical management of LDS.PATIENT SAMPLEInclusion criteria were patients with: radiographic evidence of LDS and neurogenic claudication or radicular pain, undergoing posterior decompression alone or posterior decompression and fusion, performed in one of seven, participating academic centers from 2015 to 2019.OUTCOME MEASURESPatient demographics, patient-rated outcome measures (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI], numberical rating scale back pain and leg pain, SF-12), and imaging parameters were recorded in the Canadian Spine Outcomes Research Network (CSORN) database. Surgeon factors were retrieved by survey of each participating surgeon and then linked to their specific patients within the database.METHODSUnivariate analysis was used to compare patient characteristics, imaging measures, and surgeon variables between those that had a fusion and those that had decompression alone. Multivariate backward logistic regression was used to identify the best combination of factors associated with the decision to perform a fusion.RESULTSThis study includes 241 consecutively enrolled patients receiving surgery from 11 surgeons at 7 sites. Patients that had a fusion were younger (65.3±8.3 vs. 68.6±9.7 years, p=.012), had worse ODI scores (45.9±14.7 vs. 40.2±13.5, p=.007), a smaller average disc height (6.1±2.7 vs. 8.0±7.3 mm, p=.005), were more likely to have grade II spondylolisthesis (31% vs. 14%, p=.008), facet distraction (34% vs. 60%, p=.034), and a nonlordotic disc angle (26% vs. 17%, p=.038). The rate of fusion varied by individual surgeon and practice location (p<.001, respectively). Surgeons that were fellowship trained in Canada more frequently fused than those who fellowship trained outside of Canada (76% vs. 57%, p=.027). Surgeons on salary fused more frequently than surgeons remunerated by fee-for-service (80% vs. 64%, p=.004). In the multivariate analysis the clinical factors associated with an increased odds of fusion were decreasing age, decreasing disc height, and increasing ODI score; the radiographic factors were grade II spondylolisthesis and neutral or kyphotic standing disc type; and the surgeon factors were fellowship location, renumeration type and practice region. The odds of having a fusion surgery was more than two times greater for patients with a grade II spondylolisthesis or neutral and/or kyphotic standing disc type (opposed to lordotic standing disc type). Patients whose surgeon completed their fellowship in Canada, or whose surgeon was salaried (opposed to fee-for-service), or whose surgeon practiced in western Canada had twice the odds of having fusion surgery.CONCLUSIONSThe decision to perform a fusion in addition to decompression for LDS is multifactorial. Although patient and radiographic parameters are important in the decision-making process, multiple surgeon factors are associated with the preference of a Canadian spine surgeon to perform a fusion for LDS. Future work is necessary to decrease treatment variability between surgeons and help facilitate the implementation of evidence-based decision making.     

High viscosity bone cement vertebroplasty versus low viscosity bone cement vertebroplasty in the treatment of mid-high thoracic vertebral compression fractures

BACKGROUND CONTEXTAs science and technology have advanced, novel bone cements with numerous formulated ingredients have greatly evolved and been commercialized for vertebroplasty. Recently, viscosity has been a focus to achieve better clinical outcomes and fewer complications. Meanwhile, the experience in the treatment of mid (T7–9) to high (T4–6) thoracic vertebral compression fractures is limited.PURPOSEThe objective of this study was to identify the different outcomes between high-viscosity bone cement (HVBC) and low-viscosity bone cement (LVBC) used to repair mid (T7–9)- and high (T4–6)- thoracic vertebral compression fractures.STUDY DESIGN/SETTINGThis study was a single-center, retrospective cohort studyPATIENT SAMPLEA consecutive series of 107 patients with a total of 144 vertebrae was included.OUTCOME MEASURESThe anterior vertebral height (AVH), middle vertebral height (MVH), posterior vertebral height (PVH), local kyphotic angle (KA), Cobb angle (CA), and other associated parameters were evaluated radiologically at several time points—preoperative, surgery day 0, postoperative day 1, and 6-month follow-up. Pain evaluation was assessed by using a visual analog scale (VAS) before and 6 months after the procedure.METHODSThe patients were divided into two groups according to the viscosity of the bone cement used, and plain film and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the vertebrae were used to calculate parameters. The patient characteristics; bone cement brand; changes in AVH, MVH, PVH, KA, CA, and VAS; and complications of each patient were recorded and then analyzed.RESULTSBoth groups showed increased vertebral body height, corrected KA, and CA after vertebroplasty. There were no significant differences between the HVBC and LVBC groups (ΔAVH: 2.19±2.60 vs. 2.48±3.09, p=.555; ΔMVH: 1.25±3.15 vs. 1.89±2.58, p=.192; ΔKA: -5.46±4.58 vs -5.37±4.47, p=.908; and ΔCA: -4.22±4.23 vs. -4.56±5.17, p=.679). There were significant preoperative to postoperative and preoperative to follow-up changes in AVH (HVBC, p=.012 and .046, respectively; LVBC, p=.001 and .015, respectively); a significant preoperative to postoperative change in MVH (HVBC, p=.045; LVBC, p=.001); and significant preoperative to postoperative and preoperative to follow-up changes in KA and CA (KA: HVBC, p=0.000 and .003, respectively; LVBC, p=.000 and .000, respectively; CA: HVBC, p=.017 and .047, respectively; LVBC, p=.006 and .034, respectively). The volume of cement injected was significantly higher with HVBC (3.66±1.36 vs. 3.11±1.53, p=.024), and the use of HVBC was associated fewer cases with cement leakage (26 vs. 45, p=.002). Furthermore, there was no difference between the groups in the incidence of adjacent fracture. Both groups showed an improved VAS score at follow-up, with statistically greater improvement in the HVBC group (2.40±1.53 vs. 3.07±1.69, p=.014). Moreover, significantly fewer patients with a VAS score ≥ 3 were found in the HVBC group (22 vs. 39, p=.004)CONCLUSIONSHVBC and LVBC are safe and effective to treat mid-to-high level thoracic vertebral compression fractures. Compared with LVBC, HVBC shows less cement leakage, a greater injection volume, and better postoperative pain relief.     

Predictors of serious,preventable, and costly medical complications in a population of adult spinal deformity patients

Background ContextIn 2008, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) established a list of hospital-acquired conditions (HACs) with significant deleterious effects on both patients and providers. Adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery is complex and highly invasive, and as such may result in significant morbidity including these HACs.PurposeIdentify predictors for developing the most common HACs among adult spinal deformity (ASD) patients undergoing corrective surgery.Study Design/SettingRetrospective analysis.Patient SampleOne thousand one hundred and seventy-one ASD patients.Outcome MeasuresHACs, Health-Related Quality of Life scores(HRQLs), Reoperation, Integrated Health State (IHS)MethodsASD pts undergoing surgery (>18 years, scoliosis ≥20°, SVA ≥5 cm, PT ≥25° and/or TK >60°) with complete data at BL and up to 2 years post-op were included. Patients were stratified by presence of >1 HAC, defined as at least one superficial/deep SSI, UTI, DVT, or PE within a 30-day post-op window. Random forest analysis generated 5,000 Conditional Inference Trees to compute a variable importance table for top predictors of HACs. An area-under-the-curve (AUC) methodology compared normalized HRQL scores between groups to determine an IHS with 2-year follow-up.ResultsTotal of 1,171 pts (59.8 years, 76.2%F, 28.1kg/m²) underwent corrective ASD surgery, with 1,053 pts in the non-HAC group and 118 in the HAC group. Of these pts, 25.4% had UTI, 15.4% DVT, 19.2% superficial SSI, 20.8% deep SSI, and 19.2% PE. HAC pts were on average older (63.5 vs 59.3, p=.004) and more often frail (51.3 vs 39.7%, p=.021) than non-HAC pts. Postop LOS and reoperation were most associated with HAC groups: [1] LOS >7 days [2] reoperation. Patient-related predictors of HACs were [3] age >50 yerr, [4] frailty, and [13] BMI >31. Procedure-related predictors of HACs were [5] operative-time >405 minutes, [6] levels fused >9, EBL >1450 mL, and [11] decompression. BL radiographic predictors were [7] PT >20°, [9] PI-LL>6°, [10] TL Cobb angle >15°, [12] SVA C7-S1 >29 mm. No differences were observed between groups with regards to IHS ODI (0.73 vs 0.74, p=.863), SRS (1.3 vs1.3, p=.374), NRS Back (0.6 vs 0.6, p=.158). HAC had higher rates of reoperation than non-HAC (0.08 vs 0.01, p=.066), and any HAC within 30-days of index was a significant predictor of reoperation (OR: 2.448 [1.94–3.09], p<.001).ConclusionsIn a population of ASD patients, HACs were associated with length of stay, reoperation, age, and frailty. Radiographic parameters such as pelvic tilt >20°, PI-LL >6°, & SVA >29 mm also increased odds of HACs, and should raise postoperative awareness for HAC development.     

Does preoperative narcotic use adversely affect outcomes and complications after spinal deformity surgery? A comparison of nonnarcotic- with narcotic-using groups

Background contextThe role of preoperative (preop) narcotic use and its influence on outcomes after spinal deformity surgery are unknown. It is important to determine which patient factors and comorbidities can affect the success of spinal deformity surgery, a challenging surgery with high rates of complications at baseline.PurposeTo evaluate if preop narcotic use persists after spinal deformity surgery and whether the outcomes are adversely affected by preop narcotic use.Study design/settingRetrospective evaluation of prospectively collected data.Patient sampleTwo hundred fifty-three adult patients (230 females/23 males) undergoing primary spinal deformity surgery were enrolled from 2000 to 2009.Outcome measuresPreoperative and postoperative (postop) narcotic use and changes in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Scoliosis Research Society (SRS) pain, and SRS total scores.MethodsPreoperative, 2-year postop, and latest follow-up pain medication use were collected along with ODI, SRS pain, and SRS scores. Preoperative insurance status, surgical and hospitalization demographics, and complications were collected. All patients had a minimum 2-year follow-up (average 47.4 months).ResultsOne hundred sixty-eight nonnarcotic (NoNarc) patients were taking no pain meds or only nonsteroidal anti-inflammatories preoperatively. Eighty-five patients were taking mild/moderate/heavy narcotics before surgery. The average age was 48.2 years for the NoNarc group versus 53.6 years for the Narc group (p<.005). There were significantly more patients with degenerative than adult scoliosis in the Narc group (47 vs. 28, p<.001; mild 19 vs. 24, p<.02; moderate 6 vs. 14, p<.0003; heavy 3 vs. 10, p<.0002). Insurance status (private/Medicare/Medicaid) was similar between the groups (p=.39). At latest follow-up, 137/156 (88%) prior NoNarc patients were still not taking narcotics whereas 48/79 (61%) prior narcotic patients were now off narcotics (p<.001). Significant postop improvements were seen in Narc versus NoNarc groups with regard to ODI (26–15 vs. 44–30.3, p<.001), SRS pain (3.36–3.9 vs. 2.3–3.38, p<.001), and overall SRS outcome (3.36–4 vs. 2.78–3.68, p<.001) scores. A comparison of change in outcome scores between the two groups showed a higher improvement in SRS pain scores for the Narc versus NoNarc group (p<.001).ConclusionsIn adults with degenerative scoliosis taking narcotics a significant decrease in pain medication use was noted after surgery. All outcome scores significantly improved postop in both groups. However, the Narc group had significantly greater improvements in SRS pain scores versus the NoNarc group.     

Patients with radiculopathy have worse baseline disability and greater improvements following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion compared to patients with myelopathy

BACKGROUND CONTEXTAnterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is commonly performed in patients with radiculopathy and myelopathy. Although the goal of surgery in patients with radiculopathy is to improve function and reduce pain, patients with myelopathy undergo surgery to halt disease progression. Although the expectations between these preoperative diagnoses are generally understood to be disparate by spine surgeons, there is limited literature demonstrating their discordant outcomes.PURPOSETo compare improvements in patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) for patients undergoing ACDF for myelopathy or radiculopathy. Secondarily, we analyzed the proportion of patients who attain the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) postoperatively using thresholds derived from radiculopathy, myelopathy, and mixed cohort studies.STUDY DESIGN/SETTINGSingle institution retrospective cohort studyPATIENT SAMPLEPatients undergoing primary, elective ACDF with a preoperative diagnosis of radiculopathy or myelopathy and a complete set of preoperative and one-year postoperative PROMs.OUTCOME MEASURESOutcome measures included the following PROMs: Short-Form 12 Physical Component (PCS-12) and Mental Component (MCS-12) scores, the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) Arm score, and the Neck Disability Index (NDI). Hospital readmissions and revision surgery were also collected and evaluated.METHODSPatients undergoing an ACDF from 2014 to 2020 were identified and grouped based on preoperative diagnosis (radiculopathy or myelopathy). We utilized “general MCID” thresholds from a cohort of patients with degenerative spine conditions, and “specific MCID” thresholds generated from cohorts of patients with myelopathy or radiculopathy, respectively. Multivariate linear regressions were performed for delta (?) PROMs and multivariate logistic regressions were performed for both general and specific MCID improvements.RESULTSA total of 798 patients met inclusion criteria. Patients with myelopathy had better baseline function and arm pain (MCS-12: 49.6 vs 47.6, p=.018; VAS Arm: 3.94 vs 6.02, p<.001; and NDI: 34.1 vs 41.9, p<.001), were older (p<.001), had more comorbidities (p=.014), more levels fused (p<.001), and had decreased improvement in PROMs following surgery compared to patients with radiculopathy (?PCS-12: 4.76 vs 7.21, p=.006; ?VAS Arm: -1.69 vs -3.70, p<.001; and ?NDI: -11.94 vs -18.61, p<.001). On multivariate analysis, radiculopathy was an independent predictor of increased improvement in PCS-12 (β=2.10, p=.019), ?NDI (β=-5.36, p<.001), and ?VAS Arm (β=-1.93, p<.001). Radiculopathy patients were more likely to achieve general MCID improvements following surgery (NDI: Odds ratio (OR): 1.42, p=.035 and VAS Arm: OR: 2.98, p<.001), but there was no difference between patients with radiculopathy or myelopathy when using radiculopathy and myelopathy specific MCID thresholds (MCS-12: p=.113, PCS-12: p=.675, NDI: p=.108, and VAS Arm: p=.314).CONCLUSIONSPatients undergoing ACDF with myelopathy or radiculopathy represent two distinct patient populations with differing treatment indications and clinical outcomes. Compared to radiculopathy, patients with myelopathy have better baseline function, decreased improvement in PROMs, and are less likely to reach MCID using general threshold values, but there is no difference in the proportion reaching MCID when using specific threshold values.LEVEL OF EVIDENCEIRB     

Outcome of spine surgery in patients with depressed mental states: a Canadian spine outcome research network study

BACKGROUND CONTEXTDepression is higher among spine patients than among the general population. Some small studies, but not others, have suggested that depression may be a predictor of worse outcome after surgery.PURPOSEDetermination whether there is an association between depression and worse response to surgery among spine patients.STUDY DESIGN/SETTINGThe national, prospective, Canadian Spine Outcome Research Network (CSORN) surgical outcome registry.PATIENT SAMPLEAll patients in the CSORN registry who received surgery for thoracic or lumbar degenerative deformity, stenosis, spondylolisthesis, disc disease, or disc herniation with a minimum of 12 months follow-up postoperation (n = 2310).OUTCOME MEASURESOswestry Disability Index (ODI), SF12 Physical Component Score (PCS), European Quality of Life (EuroQoL), and pain scales.METHODSChange in preoperative to 12-month postoperative ODI, and secondary measures, were compared to assess if there was an association between preoperative depression, as measured by PHQ9, and smaller response to surgery. Multivariate regression analysis was used to search for preoperative factors which might interact with PHQ9 to predict ODI outcome.RESULTSPatients with PHQ9<5, associated with minimal to no depression, had the smallest ODI improvement (?16.8 [95%CI ?18.1 to ?15.3]) and patients with severe preoperative depression (PHQ9 ≥ 10) had the largest ODI improvement (?22.8 [95%CI ?24.1 to ?21.5]; p<.00001). Similar findings were found in the EQ5D and PCS. Pain improvement was not different between depression levels. Multivariate modeling found worse baseline PHQ9 and ODI, greater age, nicotine use, more operative levels, and worse American Society of Anesthesiology score was predictive of worse ODI outcomes.CONCLUSIONSDepressed patients have similar or better relative improvements in disability, quality of life, and pain, when compared to nondepressed patients, although their preoperative and postoperative levels of disability are higher. Surgeons should not be concerned that depression will reduce the patient-reported beneficial response to surgical intervention.     

Gender differences in multifidus fatty infiltration,sarcopenia and association with preoperative pain and functional disability in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis

BACKGROUNDIn patients with lumbar spinal stenosis, female gender has been associated with higher pain and functional disability. Sarcopenia and multifidus atrophy have also been associated with symptomatic severity.PURPOSEThe purpose of this study was to determine if gender differences in sarcopenia and multifidus atrophy are associated with gender disparities in disease symptomatology.STUDY DESIGNProspectively collected medical records and imaging studies were retrospectively reviewed.PATIENT SAMPLEWe retrospectively reviewed medical records and imaging studies for 63 patients with clinically and radiologically defined lumbar spinal stenosis at L3/4 or L4/5 who underwent minimally invasive decompression.OUTCOME MEASURESPain and functional disability were measured using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and visual analogue scores for back pain (VASB) and leg pain (VASL).METHODSMultifidus total cross sectional area (tCSA), multifidus functional cross sectional area (fnCSA), multifidus fatty infiltration (FI), psoas tCSA, and psoas relative cross sectional area (rCSA) were evaluated by univariable and multivariable regression to identify gender linked and gender independent predictors of higher ODI, VASB, and VASL.RESULTSFemale gender was significantly associated with lower multifidus fnCSA (p < .001), higher multifidus FI (p < .001), lower psoas tCSA (p < .001), lower psoas rCSA (p = .002), and higher preoperative ODI (p = .008). Lower psoas rCSA (p = .044) and psoas tCSA in the lowest sex specific quartile (p = .034) were significantly associated with higher preoperative VASB and psoas rCSA less than the sex specific median (p = .050) was significantly associated with higher preoperative VASL after controlling for age and gender. Multifidus FI was significantly associated with preoperative ODI after adjusting for age (p = .048) but not after controlling additionally for gender (p = .651).CONCLUSIONSFemale patients with lumbar spinal stenosis may develop more severe and functionally significant multifidus atrophy, resulting in a more severe clinical course with higher functional disability. Sarcopenia was significantly associated with higher preoperative back pain and leg pain in both male and female patients with lumbar spinal stenosis.