RESUMO
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective Cohort. OBJECTIVE: To compare patient-reported outcomes and surgical outcomes after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) versus cervical laminoplasty for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy. BACKGROUND: Treatment options for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy include ACDF and cervical laminoplasty. Given that the literature has been mixed regarding the optimal approach, especially in patients without kyphosis, there is a need for additional studies investigating outcomes between ACDF and cervical laminoplasty. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted of adult patients undergoing 3 or 4-level surgery. Patients with preoperative kyphosis based on C2-C7 Cobb angles were excluded. The electronic medical record and institutional databases were reviewed for baseline characteristics, surgical outcomes, and patient-reported outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 101 patients who underwent ACDF and 52 patients who underwent laminoplasty were included in the study. The laminoplasty cohort had a higher overall Charlson Comorbidity Index (3.10 ± 1.43 vs 2.39 ± 1.57, P = 0.011). Both groups had a comparable number of levels decompressed, C2-C7 lordosis, and diagnosis of myelopathy versus myeloradiculopathy. Patients who underwent laminoplasty had a longer length of stay (2.04 ± 1.15 vs 1.48 ± 0.70, P = 0.003) but readmission, complication, and revision rates were similar. Both groups had similar improvement in myelopathy scores (∆modified Japanese Orthopedic Association: 1.11 ± 3.09 vs 1.06 ± 3.37, P = 0.639). ACDF had greater improvement in Neck Disability Index (∆Neck Disability Index: -11.66 ± 19.2 vs -1.13 ± 11.2, P < 0.001), neck pain (∆Visual Analog Scale-neck: -2.69 ± 2.78 vs -0.83 ± 2.55, P = 0.003), and arm pain (∆Visual Analog Scale-arm: -2.47 ± 3.15 vs -0.48 ± 3.19, P = 0.010). These findings persisted in multivariate analysis except for Neck Disability Index. CONCLUSION: ACDF and cervical laminoplasty appear equally efficacious at halting myelopathic progression. However, patients who underwent ACDF had greater improvements in arm pain at 1 year postoperatively. Longitudinal studies evaluating the efficacy of laminoplasty to mitigate adjacent segment disease are indicated to establish a robust risk-benefit assessment for these 2 procedures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: Determine if herniation morphology based on the Michigan State University Classification is associated with differences in (1) patient-reported outcome measures (or (2) surgical outcomes after a microdiscectomy. METHODS: Adult patients undergoing single-level microdiscectomy between 2014 and 2021 were identified. Demographics and surgical characteristics were collected through a query search and manual chart review. The Michigan State University classification, which assesses disc herniation laterality (zone A was central, zone B/C was lateral) and degree of extrusion into the central canal (grade 1 was up to 50% of the distance to the intra-facet line, grade >1 was beyond this line), was identified on preoperative MRIs. patient-reported outcome measures were collected at preoperative, 3-month, and 1-year postoperative time points. RESULTS: Of 233 patients, 84 had zone A versus 149 zone B/C herniations while 76 had grade 1 disc extrusion and 157 had >1 grade. There was no difference in surgical outcomes between groups (P > 0.05). Patients with extrusion grade >1 were found to have lower Physical Component Score at baseline. On bivariate and multivariable logistic regression analysis, extrusion grade >1 was a significant independent predictor of greater improvement in Physical Component Score at three months (estimate = 7.957; CI: 4.443-11.471, P < 0.001), but not at 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: Although all patients were found to improve after microdiscectomy, patients with disc herniations extending further posteriorly reported lower preoperative physical function but experienced significantly greater improvement three months after surgery. However, improvement in Visual Analog Scale Leg and back, ODI, and MCS at three and twelve months was unrelated to laterality or depth of disc herniation.
Assuntos
Discotomia , Deslocamento do Disco Intervertebral , Microcirurgia , Medidas de Resultados Relatados pelo Paciente , Humanos , Deslocamento do Disco Intervertebral/cirurgia , Deslocamento do Disco Intervertebral/diagnóstico por imagem , Masculino , Feminino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Discotomia/métodos , Adulto , Microcirurgia/métodos , Resultado do Tratamento , Idoso , Estudos Retrospectivos , Imageamento por Ressonância Magnética , Vértebras Lombares/cirurgia , Vértebras Lombares/diagnóstico por imagemRESUMO
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to investigate whether weekday lumbar spine fusion surgery has an impact on surgical and inpatient physical therapy (PT) outcomes. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Timing of surgery has been implicated as a factor that may impact outcomes after spine surgery. Previous literature suggests that there may be an adverse effect to having surgery on the weekend. METHODS: All patients ≥18 years who underwent primary lumbar spinal fusion from 2014 to 2020 were retrospectively identified. Patients were subdivided into an early subgroup (surgery between Monday and Wednesday) and a late subgroup (surgery between Thursday and Friday). Surgical outcome variables included inpatient complications, 90-day readmissions, and 1-year revisions. PT data from the first inpatient PT session included hours to PT session, AM-PAC Daily Activity or Basic Mobility scores, and total gait trial distance achieved. RESULTS: Of the 1239 patients identified, 839 had surgery between Monday and Wednesday and 400 had surgery between Thursday and Friday. Patients in the later surgery subgroup were more likely to experience a nonsurgical neurologic complication (3.08% vs. 0.86%, P =0.008); however, there was no difference in total complications. Patients in the early surgery subgroup had their first inpatient PT session earlier than patients in the late subgroup (15.7 vs. 18.9 h, P <0.001). However, patients in the late subgroup achieved a farther total gait distance (98.2 vs. 75.4, P =0.011). Late surgery was a significant predictor of more hours of PT (est.=0.256, P =0.016) and longer length of stay (est.=2.277, P =0.001). There were no significant differences in readmission and revision rates. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who undergo surgery later in the week may experience more nonsurgical neurologic complications, longer wait times for inpatient PT appointments, and longer lengths of stay. This analysis showed no adverse effect of later weekday surgery as it relates to total complications, readmissions, and reoperations. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.
Assuntos
Vértebras Lombares , Fusão Vertebral , Humanos , Fusão Vertebral/efeitos adversos , Masculino , Feminino , Vértebras Lombares/cirurgia , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Resultado do Tratamento , Estudos Retrospectivos , Idoso , Fatores de Tempo , Complicações Pós-Operatórias/etiologia , Adulto , Readmissão do Paciente/estatística & dados numéricosRESUMO
STUDY DESIGN: Global cross-sectional survey. OBJECTIVE: To establish a surgical algorithm for sacral fractures based on the Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen (AO) Spine Sacral Injury Classification System. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Although the AO Spine Sacral Injury Classification has been validated across an international audience of surgeons, a consensus on a surgical algorithm for sacral fractures using the Sacral AO Spine Injury Score (Sacral AOSIS) has yet to be developed. METHODS: A survey was sent to general orthopedic surgeons, orthopedic spine surgeons, and neurosurgeons across the five AO spine regions of the world. Descriptions of controversial sacral injuries based on different fracture subtypes were given, and surgeons were asked whether the patient should undergo operative or nonoperative management. The results of the survey were used to create a surgical algorithm based on each subtype's sacral AOSIS. RESULTS: An international agreement of 70% was decided on by the AO Spine Knowledge Forum Trauma experts to indicate a recommendation of initial operative intervention. Using this, sacral fracture subtypes of AOSIS 5 or greater were considered operative, while those with AOSIS 4 or less were generally nonoperative. For subtypes with an AOSIS of 3 or 4, if the sacral fracture was associated with an anterior pelvic ring injury (M3 case-specific modifier), intervention should be left to the surgeons' discretion. CONCLUSION: The AO Spine Sacral Injury Classification System offers a validated hierarchical system to approach sacral injuries. Through multispecialty and global surgeon input, a surgical algorithm was developed to determine appropriate operative indications for sacral trauma. Further validation is required, but this algorithm provides surgeons across the world with the basis for discussion and the development of standards of care and treatment.
Assuntos
Fraturas da Coluna Vertebral , Traumatismos da Coluna Vertebral , Humanos , Estudos Transversais , Fraturas da Coluna Vertebral/terapia , Traumatismos da Coluna Vertebral/terapia , Sacro/lesões , AlgoritmosRESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Investigations in spine surgery have demonstrated that trainee involvement correlates with increased surgical time, readmissions, and revision surgeries; however, the specific effects of spine fellow involvement remain unelucidated. This study aims to investigate the isolated effect of fellow involvement on surgical timing and patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) after spine surgery and evaluate how surgical outcomes differ by fellow experience. METHODS: All patients aged 18 years or older who underwent primary or revision decompression or fusion for degenerative diseases and/or spinal deformity between 2017 and 2019 at a single academic institution were retrospectively identified. Patient demographics, surgical factors, intraoperative timing, transfusion status, length of stay (LOS), readmissions, revision rate, and preoperative and postoperative PROMs were recorded. Surgeries were divided based on spine fellow participation status and occurrence in the start or end of fellowship training. Univariate and multivariate analyses compared outcomes across fellow involvement and fellow experience groups. RESULTS: A total of 1,108 patients were included. Age, preoperative diagnoses, number of fusion levels, and surgical approach differed markedly by fellow involvement. Fellow training experience groups differed by patient smoking status, preoperative diagnosis, and surgical approach. On univariate analysis, spine fellow involvement was associated with extended total theater time, induction start to cut time, cut to close time, and LOS. Increased spine fellow training was associated with reduced cut to close time and LOS. On regression, fellow involvement predicted cut to close extension while increased fellow training experience predicted reduction in cut to close time, both independent of surgical factors and assisting residents or physician assistants. Transfusions, readmissions, revision rate, and PROMs did not differ markedly by fellow involvement or experience. CONCLUSION: Spine fellow participation predicted extended procedural duration. However, the presence of a spine fellow did not affect long-term postoperative outcomes. Furthermore, increased fellow training experience predicted decreased procedural time, underscoring a learning effect. AVAILABILITY OF DATA AND MATERIAL: The data sets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 3.