Study Design. Retrospective study. Objective. The aim of this study was to determine risk factors for prolonged opioid use and to investigate whether opioid-tolerance affects patient-reported outcomes following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) surgery. Summary of Background Data. There is a lack of consensus on risk factors that can affect continued opioid use after cervical spine surgery and the influence of opioid use on patient-reported outcomes. Methods. Ninety-two patients who underwent ACDF for degenerative cervical pathologies were retrospectively identified and their opioid usage before surgery was investigated using a state-sponsored prescription drug monitoring registry. Opioid-naïve and opioid tolerant groups were defined using criteria most consistent with the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) definition. Patient-reported outcomes were then collected, including the Short Form-12 (SF-12) Physical Component (PCS-12) and Mental Component (MCS-12), the Neck Disability Index (NDI), the Visual Analogue Scale Neck (VAS neck) and the Visual Analogue Scale Arm (VAS Arm) pain scores. Logistic regression was used to determine predictors for prolonged opioid use following ACDF. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to compare change in outcomes over time between the two groups. Results. Logistic regression analysis demonstrated that opioid tolerance was a significant predictor for prolonged opioid use after ACDF (odds ratio [OR]: 18.2 [1.46, 226.4], P = 0.02). Duration of usage was also found to be a significant predictor for continued opioid use after surgery (OR: 1.10 [1.0, 1.03], P = 0.03). No other risk factors were found to be significant predictors. Both groups overall experienced improvements in patient-reported outcomes after surgery. Multiple linear regression analysis, controlling for patient demographics, demonstrated that opioid-tolerant user status positively affected change in outcomes over time for NDI (β = −13.7 [−21.8,−5.55], P = 0.002) and PCS-12 (β = 6.99 [2.59, 11.4], P = 0.003) but no other outcomes measured. Conclusion. Opioid tolerance was found to be a significant predictor for prolonged opioid use after ACDF. Additionally, opioid-naïve and opioid-tolerant users experienced overall improvements across PROMs following ACDF. Opioid-tolerance was associated with NDI and PCS-12 improvements over time compared to opioid-naïve users. Level of Evidence: 4
In July of 2018, the Second International Consensus Meeting on Musculoskeletal Infection convened in Philadelphia, PA to discuss issues regarding infection in orthopedic patients and to provide consensus recommendations on these issues to practicing orthopedic surgeons. During this meeting, attending delegates divided into subspecialty groups to discuss topics specifics to their respective fields, which included the spine. At the spine subspecialty group meeting, delegates discussed and voted upon the recommendations for 63 questions regarding the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of infection in spinal surgery. Of the 63 questions, 7 focused on wound care, for which this article provides the recommendations, voting results, and rationales.
Background: The purpose of the present study was to determine if the duration of symptoms affects outcomes following the treatment of intervertebral lumbar disc herniation. Methods: An as-treated analysis was performed on patients enrolled in the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT) for the treatment of intervertebral lumbar disc herniation. Randomized and observational cohorts were combined. A comparison was made between patients who had had symptoms for six months or less (n = 927) and those who had had symptoms for more than six months (n = 265). Primary and secondary outcomes were measured at baseline and at regular follow-up intervals up to four years. The treatment effect for each outcome measure was determined at each follow-up period for the duration of symptoms for both groups. Results: At all follow-up intervals, the primary outcome measures were significantly worse in patients who had had symptoms for more than six months prior to treatment, regardless of whether the treatment was operative or nonoperative. When the values at the time of the four-year follow-up were compared with the baseline values, patients in the operative treatment group who had had symptoms for six months or less had a greater increase in the bodily pain domain of the Short Form-36 (SF-36) (mean change, 48.3 compared with 41.9; p < 0.001), a greater increase in the physical function domain of the SF-36 (mean change, 47.7 compared with 41.2; p < 0.001), and a greater decrease in the Oswestry Disability Index score (mean change, –41.1 compared with –34.6; p < 0.001) as compared with those who had had symptoms for more than six months (with higher scores indicating less severe symptoms on the SF-36 and indicating more severe symptoms on the Oswestry Disability Index). When the values at the time of the four-year follow-up were compared with the baseline values, patients in the nonoperative treatment group who had had symptoms for six months or less had a greater increase in the bodily pain domain of the SF-36 (mean change, 31.8 compared with 21.4; p < 0.001), a greater increase in the physical function domain of the SF-36 (mean change, 29.5 compared with 22.6; p = 0.015), and a greater decrease in the Oswestry Disability Index score (mean change, −24.9 compared with −18.5; p = 0.006) as compared with those who had had symptoms for more than six months. Differences in treatment effect between the two groups related to the duration of symptoms were not significant. Conclusions: Increased symptom duration due to lumbar disc herniation is related to worse outcomes following both operative and nonoperative treatment. The relative increased benefit of surgery compared with nonoperative treatment was not dependent on the duration of the symptoms. Level of Evidence: Prognostic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Cadaver training lab.To determine if a technical cadaver skills training lab for spinal surgery increases resident confidence, satisfaction in training, and perception of operating room safety.Resident training is an important topic in the setting of work hour reform. The use of supplemental materials such as videos, sawbones, and simulators may become important to adequately train orthopedic residents. At present, there are no established curricula for training orthopedic surgery residents on anatomy and common procedures encountered during a spinal surgery rotation.Residents were assembled into teams of a PGY-5 and PGY-2 and/or PGY-1 to perform dissection and procedures on 5 fresh-frozen spine cadavers. With attending and spine fellow supervision, residents performed anterior cervical, posterior cervical, and posterior thoracolumbar surgical exposure, decompression, and fusion procedures in the operating room using surgical tools and instrumentation. Residents were then queried about their confidence levels, satisfaction in training, and perception of safety using a Likert scale (0-10). Strong agreement (scores ≥8) and strong disagreement (scores ≤3) and correlations were evaluated.Seventeen residents completed the training program (7 PGY-1s, 2 PGY-2s, and 8 PGY-5s). After the training, the majority of residents strongly agreed that they had an increased confidence of their own abilities (59%). A significant majority (65%) of residents strongly agreed that they were satisfied with the benefits provided by the training program. Compared with other methods of education, residents strongly agreed that the training was more helpful than textbook chapters (94%), sawbones (94%), web-based training (94%), or a virtual-based (completely electronic) training (94%). After the training, residents strongly agreed that the training improved feelings of preparation (47%), safety (41%), and ability to prevent intraoperative errors (41%). The vast majority of residents strongly agreed "Before performing surgery on me, I would want a resident to perform this cadaveric training" (88%).These results demonstrate that team-based, cadaveric training with adequate attending supervision, before onset of a spine surgical rotation, may lead to high resident confidence, satisfaction in training, and perception of patient safety.
In Brief Study Design. Subgroup analysis of prospective, randomized database from the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT) Objective. The hypothesis of this study was that patients who received ESI during initial treatment as part of SPORT (The Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial) would have improved clinical outcome and a lower rate of crossover to surgery than patients who did not receive ESI. Summary of Background Data. The use of epidural steroid injection (ESI) in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis is common, although there is little evidence in the literature to demonstrate its long-term benefi t in the treatment of lumbar stenosis. Methods. Patients with lumbar spinal stenosis who received ESI within the first 3 months of enrollment in SPORT (ESI) were compared with patients who did not receive epidural injections during the first 3 months of the study (no-ESI). Results. There were 69 ESI patients and 207 no-ESI patients. There were no significant differences in demographic factors, baseline clinical outcome scores, or operative details between the groups, although there was a significant increase in baseline preference for nonsurgical treatment among ESI patients (ESI 62% vs. no-ESI 33%, P < 0.001). There was an average 26-minute increase in operative time and an increased length of stay by 0.9 days among the ESI patients who ultimately underwent surgical treatment. Averaged over 4 years, there was significantly less improvement in 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) Physical Function among surgically treated ESI patients (ESI 14.8 vs. no-ESI 22.5, P = 0.025). In addition, there was significantly less improvement among the nonsurgically treated patients in SF-36 Body Pain (ESI 7.3 vs. no-ESI 16.7, P = 0.007) and SF-36 Physical Function (ESI 5.5 vs. no-ESI 15.2, P = 0.009). Of the patients assigned to the surgical treatment group, there was a significantly increased crossover to nonsurgical treatment among patients who received an ESI (ESI 33% vs. no-ESI 11%, P = 0.012). Of the patients assigned to the nonoperative treatment group, there was a significantly increased crossover to surgical treatment in the ESI patients (ESI 58% vs. no-ESI 32%, P = 0.003). Conclusion. Despite equivalent baseline status, ESIs were associated with significantly less improvement at 4 years among all patients with spinal stenosis in SPORT. Furthermore, ESIs were associated with longer duration of surgery and longer hospital stay. There was no improvement in outcome with ESI whether patients were treated surgically or nonsurgically. Epidural steroid injections (ESIs) were associated with significantly less improvement at 4 years among all patients with spinal stenosis in SPORT (The Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial). Furthermore, ESIs were associated with longer duration of surgery and longer hospital stay. There was no improvement in outcome with ESI whether patients were treated surgically or nonsurgically.
Retrospective institutional database review.To determine whether preoperative in-room time is a risk factor for surgical site infection (SSI).Prior to spine surgery, while the patient is in the operating room, several procedures may be performed that may delay surgery. During this time, the sterile field may be exposed and may become contaminated. The hypothesis of this study was that the length of time in the operative room prior to surgical incision (anesthesia ready time [ART]) was related to the risk of SSI.From 2005 to 2009, we identified 276 patients who developed SSI out of 7991 cases that underwent spine surgery from 2005 to 2009. Patient demographic factors, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, wound classification, number of levels, anatomic region, type of surgical approach, and length of surgery were extrapolated. ART was calculated as the time after the patient was brought into the operating room prior to surgical incision. Multivariate analysis was performed to identify risk factors for SSI.Mean ART was significantly (P = 0.001) higher in patients with infection (68 min) compared with those without infection (60 min). The infection rate was higher in cases with ART more than 1 hour compared with those with less than 1 hour (4.9% vs. 2.3%, P = 0.001). In multivariate analysis, ART more than 1 hour was an independent risk factor for SSI, along with number of levels, American Society of Anesthesiologists score and posterior approach. The highest percentage of cases with ART more than 1 hour occurred in August and September.Preoperative in-room time prior to the start of surgical incision is an independent risk factor for SSI. All possible steps should be taken prior to entry into the operating theater to reduce in-room time and opening of surgical sterile instrumentation be delayed until the surgery is ready to proceed.
The pedicle screw is the most common device used to achieve fixation in fusion of spondylolistheses. Safe and accurate placement with this technique relies on a thorough understanding of the bony anatomy. There is a paucity of literature comparing the surgically relevant osseous anatomy in patients with a degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) and an isthmic spondylolisthesis (IS). The goal of this study was to determine the differences in the osseous anatomy in patients with a DS and those with an IS.A retrospective comparative cohort study was conducted on patients with a single-level, symptomatic L4-L5 DS or a single-level, symptomatic L5-S1 IS. Magnetic resonance imaging for these patients was reviewed. Morphometries of the pedicle and vertebral body were analyzed by 2 independent observers for the levels from L3 to S1, and radiographic parameters were compared between groups.A total of 572 levels in 143 patients were studied, including 103 patients with a DS and 40 with an IS. After accounting for confounders, IS and DS had an independent effect on transverse vertebral body width, pedicle height and width, and sagittal pedicle angle. Patients with an IS had a smaller pedicle height (P < .001) and pedicle width (P = .001) than patients with DS. In addition, the angulation of the pedicles varied on the basis of the diagnosis.The osseous anatomy is significantly different in patients with a DS than with an IS. Patients with an IS have smaller pedicles in the lumbar spine. Also, the L4 and L5 pedicles are more caudally angulated and the S1 pedicle is less medialized.3.Understanding the differences in pedicle anatomy is important for the safe placement of pedicle screws.
'/%3e%3cpath d='M200 752.362h200v300H200z' style='fill:%23fff;fill-opacity:1;stroke:none' transform='translate(0 -752.362)'/%3e%3cpath d='M400 752.362h200v300H400z' style='fill:%23ff883e;fill-opacity:1;stroke:none' transform='translate(0 -752.362)'/%3e%3c/svg%3e)