No abstract

Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is the most common performed surgery in the cervical spine. Dysphagia is one of the most frequent complications following ACDF. Several studies have identified certain demographic and perioperative risk factors associated with increased dysphagia rates, but few have reported recent trends. Our study aims to report current trends and factors associated with the development of inpatient postoperative dysphagia after ACDF. Methods: The National Inpatient Sample was evaluated from 2004 to 2014 and discharges with International Classification of Diseases procedure codes indicating ACDF were selected. Time trend series plots were created for the yearly treatment trends for each fusion level by dysphagia outcome. Separate univariable followed by multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to evaluate predictors of dysphagia. Results: A total of 1,212,475 ACDFs were identified in which 3.3% experienced postoperative dysphagia. A significant increase in annual dysphagia rates was observed from 2004-2014. Frailty, intraoperative neuromonitoring, 4 or more level fusions, African American race, fluid/electrolyte disorders, blood loss, and coagulopathy were all identified as significant independent risk factors for the development of postoperative dysphagia following ACDF. Conclusion:Postoperative dysphagia is a well-known postsurgical complication associated with ACDF. Our cohort showed a significant increase in the annual dysphagia rates independent of levels fused. We identified several risk factors associated with the development of postoperative dysphagia after ACDF.

OBJECTIVE Awake surgery has previously been found to improve patient outcomes postoperatively in a variety of procedures. Recently, multiple groups have investigated the utility of this modality for use in spine surgery. However, few current meta-analyses exist comparing patient outcomes in awake spinal anesthesia with those in general anesthesia. Therefore, the authors sought to present an updated systematic review and meta-analysis investigating the utility of spinal anesthesia relative to general anesthesia in lumbar procedures. METHODS Following a comprehensive literature search of the PubMed and Cochrane databases, 14 clinical studies were included in our final qualitative and quantitative analyses. Of these studies, 5 investigated spinal anesthesia in lumbar discectomy, 4 discussed lumbar laminectomy, and 2 examined interbody fusion procedures. One study investigated combined lumbar decompression and fusion or decompression alone. Two studies investigated patients who underwent discectomy and laminectomy, and 1 study investigated a series of patients who underwent transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, posterolateral fusion, or decompression. Odds ratios, mean differences (MDs), and 95% confidence intervals were calculated where appropriate. RESULTS A meta-analysis of the total anesthesia time showed that time was significantly less in patients who received spinal anesthesia for both lumbar discectomies (MD −26.53, 95% CI −38.16 to −14.89; p = 0.00001) and lumbar laminectomies (MD −11.21, 95% CI −19.66 to −2.75; p = 0.009). Additionally, the operative time was significantly shorter in patients who underwent spinal anesthesia (MD −14.94, 95% CI −20.43 to −9.45; p < 0.00001). Similarly, when analyzing overall postoperative complication rates, patients who received spinal anesthesia were significantly less likely to experience postoperative complications (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.16–0.53; p < 0.0001). Furthermore, patients who received spinal anesthesia had significantly lower postoperative pain scores (MD −2.80, 95% CI −4.55 to −1.06; p = 0.002). An identical trend was seen when patients were stratified by lumbar procedures. Patients who received spinal anesthesia were significantly less likely to require postoperative analgesia (OR 0.06, 95% CI 0.02–0.25; p < 0.0001) and had a significantly shorter hospital length of stay (MD −0.16, 95% CI −0.29 to −0.03; p = 0.02) and intraoperative blood loss (MD −52.36, 95% CI −81.55 to −23.17; p = 0.0004). Finally, the analysis showed that spinal anesthesia cost significantly less than general anesthesia (MD −226.14, 95% CI −324.73 to −127.55; p < 0.00001). CONCLUSIONS This review has demonstrated the varying benefits of spinal anesthesia in awake spine surgery relative to general anesthesia in patients who underwent various lumbar procedures. The analysis has shown that spinal anesthesia may offer some benefits when compared with general anesthesia, including reduction in the duration of anesthesia, operative time, total cost, and postoperative complications. Large prospective trials will elucidate the true role of this modality in spine surgery.

OBJECTIVE Lumbar stenosis treatment has evolved with the introduction of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) techniques. Endoscopic methods take the concepts applied to MIS a step further, with multiple studies showing that endoscopic techniques have outcomes that are similar to those of more traditional approaches. The aim of this study was to perform an updated meta-analysis and systematic review of studies comparing the outcomes between endoscopic (uni- and biportal) and microscopic techniques for the treatment of lumbar stenosis. METHODS Following PRISMA guidelines, a systematic search was performed using the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Ovid Embase, and PubMed databases from their dates of inception to December 14, 2020. All identified articles were then systematically screened against the following inclusion criteria: 1) studies comparing endoscopic (either uniportal or biportal) with minimally invasive approaches, 2) patient age ≥ 18 years, and 3) diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis. Bias was assessed using quality assessment criteria and funnel plots. Meta-analysis using a random-effects model was used to synthesize the metadata. RESULTS From a total of 470 studies, 14 underwent full-text assessment. Of these 14 studies, 13 comparative studies were included for quantitative analysis, totaling 1406 procedures satisfying all criteria for selection. Regarding postoperative back pain, 9 studies showed that endoscopic methods resulted in significantly lower pain scores compared with MIS (mean difference [MD] −1.0, 95% CI −1.6 to −0.4, p < 0.01). The length of stay data were reported by 7 studies, with endoscopic methods associated with a significantly shorter length of stay versus the MIS technique (MD −2.1 days, 95% CI −2.7 to −1.4, p < 0.01). There was no significant difference with respect to leg visual analog scale scores, Oswestry Disability Index scores, blood loss, surgical time, and complications, and there were not any significant quality or bias concerns. CONCLUSIONS Both endoscopic and MIS techniques are safe and effective methods for treating patients with symptomatic lumbar stenosis. Patients who undergo endoscopic surgery seem to report less postoperative low-back pain and significantly reduced hospital stay with a trend toward less perioperative blood loss. Future large prospective randomized trials are needed to confirm the findings in this study.

Objective Obesity has become a public health crisis and continues to be on the rise. An elevated body mass index has been linked to higher rates of spinal degenerative disease requiring surgical intervention. Limited studies exist that evaluate the effects of obesity on perioperative complications in patients undergoing anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). Our study aims to determine the incidence of obesity in the ACDF population and the effects it may have on postoperative inpatient complications. Methods The National Inpatient Sample was evaluated from 2004 to 2014 and discharges with International Classification of Diseases procedure codes indicating ACDF were identified. This cohort was stratified into patients with diagnosis codes indicating obesity. Separate univariable followed by multivariable logistic regression analysis were performed for the likelihood of perioperative inpatient outcomes among the patients with obesity. Results From 2004 to 2014, estimated 1,212,475 ACDFs were identified in which 9.2% of the patients were obese. The incidence of obesity amongst ACDF patients has risen dramatically during those years from 5.8% to 13.4%. Obese ACDF patients had higher inpatient likelihood of dysphagia, neurological, respiratory, and hematologic complications as well as pulmonary emboli, and intraoperative durotomy. Conclusion Obesity is a well-established modifiable comorbidity that leads to increased perioperative complications in various surgical specialties. We present one of the largest retrospective analyses evaluating the effects of obesity on inpatient complications following ACDF. Our data suggest that the number of obese patients undergoing ACDF is steadily increasing and had a higher inpatient likelihood of developing perioperative complications.

BACKGROUND Trigeminal neuralgia (TN), hemifacial spasm (HFS), and glossopharyngeal neuralgia (GPN) are hyperactive dysfunction syndromes (HDS) commonly caused by microvascular compression of their root entry zone. Cases of combined HDS involving 2 or more of these entities are extremely rare. Although microvascular decompression is the surgical treatment of choice, there are additional techniques that have been described as efficient methods to accomplish vessel transposition. OBJECTIVE To our knowledge, we present the first reported case of triple simultaneous HDS successfully treated using the clip-sling technique to achieve microvascular decompression. We discuss several technical pearls and pitfalls relevant to the use of the sling suspension technique. METHODS We report the rare case of a 66-yr-old male with combined simultaneous unilateral right-sided TN, HFS, and GPN because of a dolichoectatic vertebrobasilar system compressing the exit zones of the right trigeminal, facial, and glossopharyngeal nerves and present a literature review of combined HDS and their different surgical treatments. RESULTS Symptomatic TN, HFS, and GPN have been reported 8 times in the literature with our case being the ninth. A retrosigmoid craniotomy was performed for microvascular decompression of the brainstem with a clip-sling suspension technique augmented with Teflon felt pledgets. The patient had immediate complete relief from TN, HFS, and GPN postoperatively. CONCLUSION Microvascular decompression using the clip-sling technique via a retrosigmoid approach should be considered as a safe and effective option for transposition and suspension of the offending artery and decompression of the affected nerve roots in cases of combined HDS.

BACKGROUND Peripheral nerve sheath tumors (PNSTs) are tumors with unique clinical and imaging features that present to a variety of physicians. These lesions are often referred for biopsy, which can put nerve fascicles at risk. Preoperative biopsy may cause distortion of normal anatomic planes, making definitive resection difficult. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the neurological risks of preoperative biopsy in benign PNSTs. METHODS Surgical cases collected retrospectively using a prospectively established database of PNSTs treated by a single surgeon between 1997 and 2019. Patients were dichotomized depending on preoperative biopsy. The effects of biopsy were assessed via history and physical examination both pre- and postdefinitive resection. RESULTS A total of 151 cases were included. Only 23.2% (35) of patients underwent preoperative biopsy, but 42.9% of these experienced new or worsening neurological examination immediately following biopsy. After definitive resection, the rate of neurological deficit was significantly different between the 2 groups with 60% of biopsy patients and 19% of those patients not biopsied experiencing decline in examination (F = 25.72, P &lt; .001). Odds ratio for any postoperative deficit for biopsy was 6.40 (CI [2.8, 14.55], P &lt; .001). Univariate logistic regression of neurological deficit with patient age, sex, tumor type, and biopsy status showed that only biopsy was associated with the occurrence of any postoperative deficit. CONCLUSION Biopsy of benign PNSTs is associated with a high rate of neurological deficit both immediately following the procedure and after definitive resection. Careful selection is imperative prior to proceeding with biopsy of nerve sheath tumors exhibiting benign features given the unacceptably high rate of neurological decline.

OBJECTIVE Bisphosphonates and teriparatide are the most common therapies used in the treatment of osteoporosis. Their impact on fusion rates in osteoporotic patients following spinal fusion has yet to be concretely defined, with previous systematic reviews focusing heavily on bisphosphonates and lacking clinical insight on the utility of teriparatide. Herein the authors present an updated meta-analysis of the utility of both bisphosphonates and teriparatide in improving spinal fusion outcomes in osteoporotic patients. METHODS After a comprehensive search of the English-language literature in the PubMed and Embase databases, 11 clinical studies were included in the final qualitative and quantitative analyses. Of these studies, 9 investigated bisphosphonates, 7 investigated teriparatide, and 1 investigated a combination of teriparatide and denosumab. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated where appropriate. RESULTS A meta-analysis of the postoperative use of bisphosphonate demonstrated better odds of successful fusion as compared to that in controls during short-term monitoring (OR 3.33, 95% CI 1.72–6.42, p = 0.0003) but not long-term monitoring (p > 0.05). Bisphosphonate use was also shown to significantly reduce the likelihood of postoperative vertebral compression fracture (VCF; OR 0.07, 95% CI 0.01–0.59, p = 0.01) and significantly reduce Oswestry Disability Index scores (mean difference [MD] = −2.19, 95% CI −2.94 to −1.44, p < 0.00001) and visual analog scale pain scores (MD = −0.58, 95% CI −0.79 to −0.38, p < 0.00001). Teriparatide was found to significantly increase fusion rates at long-term postoperative periods as compared to rates after bisphosphonate therapy, with patients who received postoperative teriparatide therapy 2.05 times more likely to experience successful fusion (OR 2.05, 95% CI 1.17–3.59, p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS The authors demonstrate the benefits of bisphosphonate and teriparatide therapy independently in accelerating fusion during the first 6 months after spinal fusion surgery in osteoporotic patients. In addition, they show that teriparatide may have superior benefits in spinal fusion during long-term monitoring as compared to those with bisphosphonates. Bisphosphonates may be better suited in preventing VCFs postoperatively in addition to minimizing postoperative disability and pain.