Journal of neurosurgery. Spine
-
Food and Drug Administration-approved investigational device exemption (IDE) studies have provided level I evidence supporting cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) as a safe and effective alternative to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). Long-term CDA outcomes continue to be evaluated. Here, the authors present outcomes at 10 years postoperatively for the single-level CDA arm of an IDE study (postapproval study). ⋯ CDA remained safe and effective out to 10 years postoperatively, with results comparable to 7-year outcomes and with high patient satisfaction.Clinical trial registration no.: NCT00667459 (clinicaltrials.gov).
-
OBJECTIVEThe Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) is an adaptive, self-reported outcomes assessment tool that utilizes item response theory and computer adaptive testing to efficiently and precisely evaluate symptoms and perceived health status. Efforts to implement and report PROMIS outcomes in spine clinical practice remain limited. The objective of this retrospective cohort study is to evaluate the performance and psychometric properties of PROMIS physical function (PF) and pain interference (PI) among patients undergoing spine surgery. ⋯ However, the burden of PF limitations and PI was greater within the lumbar spine disease subgroup, compared to patients with cervical radiculopathy and myelopathy. CONCLUSIONSPatients receiving care at a tertiary spine surgery outpatient clinic experience significant overall disability and PI, as measured by PROMIS PF and PI computer adaptive tests. PROMIS PF and PI health domains are strongly correlated, responsive to changes over time, and facilitate time-efficient evaluations of perceived health status outcomes in patients undergoing spine surgery.
-
OBJECTIVEIn a large, consecutive series of patients treated with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) performed by a single surgeon, the authors compared the clinical and surgical outcomes of patients who underwent ACDF in an inpatient versus outpatient setting. METHODSPatients undergoing primary ACDF were retrospectively reviewed and stratified by surgical setting: hospital or ambulatory surgical center (ASC). Data regarding perioperative characteristics, including hospital length of stay and complications, were collected. ⋯ Both cohorts demonstrated similar NDI and VAS neck and arm pain scores preoperatively and at every postoperative time point. CONCLUSIONSAlthough patients undergoing ACDF in the hospital setting were older, had a greater comorbidity burden, and underwent surgery on more levels than patients undergoing ACDF at an outpatient center, this study demonstrated comparable surgical and clinical outcomes for both patient groups. Based on the results of this single surgeon's experience, 1- to 2-level ACDFs may be performed successfully in the outpatient setting in appropriately selected patient populations.
-
OBJECTIVEIn this study the authors sought to compare the proportion of patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis detected to have dynamic instability based on flexion and extension standing radiographs versus neutral standing radiograph and supine MRI. METHODSThis was a single-center retrospective study of all consecutive adult patients diagnosed with spondylolisthesis from January 1, 2013, to July 31, 2018, for whom the required imaging was available for analysis. Two independent observers measured the amount of translation, in millimeters, on supine MRI and flexion, extension, and neutral standing radiographs using the Meyerding technique. ⋯ There was no correlation between amount of dynamic instability between flexion and extension standing radiographs and postoperative back pain and leg pain. CONCLUSIONSMore patients were found to have dynamic instability by using neutral standing radiograph and supine MRI. In patients who received decompression and instrumented fusion, there was a significant correlation between dynamic instability on neutral standing radiograph and supine MRI and change in back pain and leg pain at 12 months.
-
OBJECTIVEIn this retrospective analysis of a prospective multicenter cohort study, the authors assessed which surgical approach, 1) the unilateral laminotomy with bilateral spinal canal decompression (ULBD; also called "over the top") or 2) the standard open bilateral decompression (SOBD), achieves better clinical outcomes in the long-term follow-up. The optimal surgical approach (ULBD vs SOBD) to treat lumbar spinal stenosis remains controversial. METHODSThe main outcomes of this study were changes in a spinal stenosis measure (SSM) symptoms score, SSM function score, and quality of life (sum score of the 3-level version of the EQ-5D tool [EQ-5D-3L]) over time. ⋯ None of the group differences between ULBD and SOBD were statistically significant. CONCLUSIONSBoth surgical techniques, ULBD and SOBD, may provide effective treatment options for DLSS patients. The authors further determined that the patient outcome results for the technically more challenging ULBD seem not to be superior to those for the SOBD even after 3 years of follow-up.