Elective Lumbar Spine Surgery Research Articles

Safety of early discharge after elective lumbar spine surgery with subfascial drains and association with significant reduction in length of stay.

After lumbar spine surgery, postoperative drain removal often delays discharge. Whether inpatient drain removal reduces the risk of surgical site infection (SSI) or hematoma remains controversial. Therefore, in patients undergoing elective lumbar spine surgery, the authors sought to determine the impact of inpatient versus outpatient drain removal on the following variables: 1) length of hospital stay (LOS), and 2) postoperative complications. A single-center retrospective cohort study in which the authors used prospectively collected data of patients undergoing primary, elective, 1- or 2-level lumbar spine decompression and/or fusion was undertaken between 2016 and 2022. Patients with intraoperative or postoperative CSF leaks were excluded. The primary exposure variable was inpatient versus outpatient drain removal. The primary outcome was LOS, and secondary outcomes were postoperative complications, including 90-day postoperative SSI or hematoma. Multivariable logistic and linear regression were performed, controlling for age, body mass index, instrumentation, number of levels, antibiotics at discharge, and surgeons involved. Of 483 patients included, 325 (67.3%) had inpatient drain removal and 158 (32.7%) had outpatient drain removal. Patients with outpatient drain removal were significantly younger (58.6 ± 12.4 vs 61.2 ± 13.2 years, p = 0.040); more likely to have 1-level surgery (75.9% vs 56.6%, p < 0.001); and less likely to receive instrumentation (50.6% vs 69.5%, p < 0.001). Postoperatively, patients with outpatient drain removal had a shorter LOS (0.7 ± 0.6 vs 2.3 ± 1.6 days, p < 0.001); were more likely to be discharged home (98.1% vs 92.3%, p = 0.015); were more likely to be discharged on antibiotics (76.6% vs 3.1%, p < 0.001); were less likely to be on opioids (32.3% vs 88.3%, p < 0.001); and were more likely to have Jackson-Pratt compared to Hemovac drains (96.2% vs 34.5%, p < 0.001). No difference was found in SSI (3.7% vs 3.8%, p > 0.999) or hematoma (0.9% vs 0.6%, p > 0.999), as well as reoperation or readmission due to SSI or hematoma. On multivariable regression, outpatient drain removal was significantly associated with shorter LOS (β = -1.15, 95% CI -1.56 to -0.73, p < 0.001). No association was found with SSI/hematoma (p > 0.05). Outpatient drain removal after elective lumbar spine surgery was associated with a significantly decreased LOS without a significant increase in postoperative SSI or hematoma. Although the choice of drain removal and the LOS may be subject to surgeons' preference, these results may support the feasibility and safety of outpatient drain removal, and the potential cost savings resulting from shortened hospital stays. Drawbacks may exist regarding added burden to the patient and the surgeon's team to accommodate 1-week follow-up appointments for drain removal.

1081 Risk Factors for Long Term Opioid Use After Elective Lumbar Spine Surgery: A MSSIC Study

INTRODUCTION: Long-term opioid use after elective lumbar spine surgery is a significant concern, given the current opioid epidemic and its impact on public health. Identifying risk factors for long-term opioid use after spine surgery is crucial in developing effective interventions to reduce the incidence of opioid dependence in this patient population. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of patient data was conducted using the Michigan Spine Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MSSIC) registry. Patients who underwent elective lumbar spine surgery between March 2018, and September 2021, were included, resulting in a total of 3599 patients at one year and 966 patients at two years follow-up. Poisson generalized estimating equation models were used for multivariate analyses. RESULTS: A total of 493 (13.7%) and 137 (14.2%) patients were still using opiates at one-year and two-years post-surgery respectively. Discharge morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs), baseline PROMIS PF functional scores, baseline pain scores, age, gender, education level, pre-operative opioid use, and not achieving the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in PROMIS PF scores at follow-up were significantly associated with long-term opioid use. Specifically, pre-operative opioid use had the strongest association with opioid use at one year (IRR = 2.83, CI: 2.40-3.34, p &lt; 0.001) and two years (IRR = 3.79, CI: 2.53-5.68, p &lt; 0.001). Additionally, not achieving MCID in PROMIS scores at follow-up was strongly associated (IRR = 2.00, CI: 1.72-2.32, p &lt; 0.001 and IRR = 2.18, CI: 1.64-2.91, p &lt; 0.001) with opioid use at both time points (1-year and 2-year respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Pre-operative opioid use and not achieving MCID in PROMIS scores at follow-up were the strongest predictors of long-term opioid use after elective lumbar spine surgery. Identifying these risk factors can help clinicians target interventions to reduce opioid use in at-risk patients and improve postoperative outcomes.

Comparison of perioperative outcomes in obese and non-obese patients subjected to open lumbar spine surgery.

Obesity is a global epidemic affecting developing countries. The relationship between obesity and perioperative outcomes during elective lumbar spine surgery remains controversial, especially in those without morbid disease. We retrospectively revised the medical records of patients with lumbar spine degeneration subjected to elective surgery. The data retrieved included demographic and clinical characteristics, body mass index (BMI), obesity status (BMI ≥ 30), surgical interventions, estimated blood loss (EBL), operative time, length of stay (LOS), and post-operative complications. Perioperative outcomes were compared between Grade I-II obese and non-obese individuals. We enrolled 53 patients, 18 with Grade I-II obesity. Their median age was 51, with no differences in gender, comorbidities, laboratory parameters, and surgical procedures received between groups. No clinically relevant differences were found between grade I-II obese and non-obese participants in EBL (300 mL vs. 250 mL, p = 0.069), operative time (3.2 h vs. 3.0 h, p = 0.037), and LOS (6 days vs. 5 days, p = 0.3). Furthermore, BMI was not associated with the incidence of significant bleeding and long stay but showed a modest correlation with operative time. Grade I-II obesity does not increase surgical complexity nor perioperative complications during open lumbar spine surgery.

Does Tighter Glycemic Control Beyond Hemoglobin A1c of 8% Improve Outcome for Lumbar Spine Surgery? A MSSIC Study.

Diabetes mellitus is associated with increased risk of postoperative adverse outcomes. Previous studies have emphasized the role of glycemic control in postoperative complications. This study aims to ascertain whether controlling hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) lower than 8% preoperatively results in meaningful risk reduction or improved outcomes. We used patient-level data from the Michigan Spine Surgery Improvement Collaborative registry, focusing on patients who underwent elective lumbar spine surgery between 2018 and 2021. The primary outcomes were length of stay and the occurrence of postoperative adverse events. Secondary outcomes included patient satisfaction, achievement of a minimum clinically important difference (MCID) of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-Physical Function, the EuroQol-5D and NRS of leg and back pain, and return to work. A total of 11 348 patients were included in this analysis. Patients with HbA1c above the thresholds before surgery had significantly higher risks of urinary retention for all 3 possible threshold values (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 1.30, P = .015; IRR = 1.35, P = .001; IRR = 1.25, P = .011 for the HbA1c cutoffs of 8%, 7.5%, and 7%, respectively). They also had longer hospital stay (IRR = 1.04, P = .002; IRR = 1.03, P = .001; IRR = 1.03, P < .001 for the HbA1c cutoffs of 8%, 7.5%, and 7%, respectively) and had higher risks of developing any complication with HbA1c cutoff of 7.5% (IRR = 1.09, P = .010) and 7% (IRR = 1.12, P = .001). Diabetics with preoperative HbA1c above all 3 thresholds were less likely to achieve Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System MCID at the 90-day follow-up (IRR = .81, P < .001; IRR = .86, P < .001; IRR = .90, P = .007 for the HbA1c cutoffs of 8%, 7.5%, and 7%, respectively) and less likely to achieve EuroQol-5D MCID at the 2-year follow-up (IRR = .87, P = .027; IRR = .84, P = .005 for the HbA1c cutoffs of 7.5% and 7%, respectively). Our study suggests that reducing HbA1c below 8% may have diminishing returns regarding reducing complications after spine surgery.

A Comparative Study of Duloxetine with Pregabalin as a Preemptive Analgesic in Lumbar Spine Surgery: A Prospective Randomized Study

Abstract Background: Preemptive analgesia is a method of administration of drugs prior to surgery involving blocking noxious stimuli across the perioperative period. It involves blocking the pain pathway preemptively before injury-induced hypersensitivity manifests. Objective: To compare the analgesic efficacy of duloxetine with pregabalin as preemptive analgesic in lumbar spine surgeries. Design: Randomised, double-blinded, prospective study. Methods: Fifty patients of both sexes between 18-55yrs undergoing elective lumbar spine surgery were randomly allocated into two groups, group P and group D of twenty-five patients each. Group P received 75 mg pregabalin once daily for three days, followed by 150 mg pregabalin daily for the next four days till the day of surgery. Group D received 20 mg duloxetine once daily for three days, followed by 40 mg duloxetine twice daily for the next four days till the day of surgery. Outcome Measure: Both the groups were primarily evaluated in terms of time for request of 1st rescue analgesic and total intraoperative analgesic requirement in terms of fentanyl boluses required; among other parameters. Results: The time for request of 1st rescue analgesic postoperatively was significantly longer in the pregabalin group (396 ± 267.77 min) than in the duloxetine group (218.4 ± 96.9 min), P = 0.003. Pregabalin recipients required considerably less rescue analgesics in terms of dosage, P = 0.006. Also, pregabalin exhibited better postoperative pain control than duloxetine as reflected by NRS comparative scores. No statistical difference was appreciated in terms of intraoperative fentanyl requirement, intraoperative hemodynamic control; nausea and sleepiness. Conclusion: Pregabalin is more efficacious as a preemptive analgesic than duloxetine in lumbar spine surgery.

Measuring quality of recovery (QoR-15) after degenerative spinal surgery: A prospective observational study

IntroductionThe Quality of Recovery (QoR-15) score evaluates patient's recovery after surgery and anesthesia. There is a lack of studies focusing on the patients' quality of recovery in the early post-discharge phase after elective lumbar spine surgery. Research questionWe aimed to identify the QoR-15 score in patients who underwent surgery for degenerative low back conditions. Furthermore, we aimed to identify the individual items of the QoR-15 that are crucial for the patients’ quality of recovery. Material and methodsThe study was conducted at a spine center in Denmark from December 2021 to September 2022. Data were collected, using a mobile health application, preoperatively and at 3 time points after hospital discharge. Descriptive analysis followed by within-subjects longitudinal repeated measures was conducted. The individual items of the QoR-15 score were explored using a heatmap. ResultsData from 46 patients were analysed. The mean QoR-15 sum score at baseline was 105.4 ± 18.3. The mean QoR-15 sum scores were 108.1 ± 19.2 on post-discharge day 1, 118.5 ± 17.4 on day 7, and 120.7 ± 20.9 on day 14. The mean QoR-15 score from day 1 to day 7 improved significantly. Eight of the 15 items influenced the overall QoR-15 score. Discussion and conclusionThis study applied the QoR-15 score in lumbar spine surgery patients. We identified specific items from the QoR-15 scale that are crucial to improving patients’ recovery after hospital discharge. Further research is needed to identify specific needs in the post-discharge period in this group of patients.

Performance of the streamlined quality outcomes database web-based calculator: internal and external validation

BACKGROUND CONTEXTWith an increasing number of web-based calculators designed to provide the probabilities of an individual achieving improvement after lumbar spine surgery, there is a need to determine the accuracy of these models. PURPOSETo perform an internal and external validation study of the reduced Quality Outcomes Database web-based Calculator (QOD-Calc). STUDY DESIGNObservational longitudinal cohort. PATIENT SAMPLEPatients enrolled study-wide in Quality Outcomes Database (QOD) and patients enrolled in DaneSpine at a single institution who had elective lumbar spine surgery with baseline data to complete QOD-Calc and 12-month postoperative data. OUTCOME MEASURESOswestry Disability Index (ODI), Numeric Rating Scales (NRS) for back and leg pain, EuroQOL-5D (EQ-5D). METHODSBaseline data elements were entered into QOD-Calc to determine the probability for each patient having Any Improvement and 30% Improvement in NRS leg pain, back pain, EQ-5D and ODI. These probabilities were compared with the actual 12-month postop data for each of the QOD and DaneSpine cases. Receiver-operating characteristics analyses were performed and calibration plots created to assess model performance. RESULTS24,755 QOD cases and 8,105 DaneSpine lumbar cases were included in the analysis. QOD-Calc had acceptable to outstanding ability (AUC: 0.694–0.874) to predict Any Improvement in the QOD cohort and moderate to acceptable ability (AUC: 0.658–0.747) to predict 30% Improvement. QOD-Calc had acceptable to exceptional ability (AUC: 0.669–0.734) to predict Any improvement and moderate to exceptional ability (AUC: 0.619–0.862) to predict 30% Improvement in the DaneSpine cohort. AUCs for the DaneSpine cohort was consistently lower that the AUCs for the QOD validation cohort. CONCLUSIONQOD-Calc performs well in predicting outcomes in a patient population that is similar to the patients that was used to develop it. Although still acceptable, model performance was slightly worse in a distinct population, despite the fact that the sample was more homogenous. Model performance may also be attributed to the low discrimination threshold, with close to 90% of cases reporting Any Improvement in outcome. Prediction models may need to be developed that are highly specific to the characteristics of the population.

Risk factors for not reaching minimal clinically important difference at 90 days and 1 year after elective lumbar spine surgery: a cohort study.

Patient-perceived functional improvement is a core metric in lumbar surgery for degenerative disease. It is important to identify both modifiable and nonmodifiable risk factors that can be evaluated and possibly optimized prior to elective surgery. This case-control study was designed to study risk factors for not achieving the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Function 4-item Short Form (PROMIS PF) score. The authors queried the Michigan Spine Surgery Improvement Collaborative database to identify patients who underwent elective lumbar surgical procedures with PROMIS PF scores. Cases were divided into two cohorts based on whether patients achieved MCID at 90 days and 1 year after surgery. Patient characteristics and operative details were analyzed as potential risk factors. The authors captured 10,922 patients for 90-day follow-up and 4453 patients (40.8%) did not reach MCID. At the 1-year follow-up period, 7780 patients were identified and 2941 patients (37.8%) did not achieve MCID. The significant demographic characteristic-adjusted relative risks (RRs) for both groups (RR 90 day, RR 1 year) included the following: symptom duration > 1 year (1.34, 1.41); previous spine surgery (1.25, 1.30); African American descent (1.25, 1.20); chronic opiate use (1.23, 1.25); and less than high school education (1.20, 1.34). Independent ambulatory status (0.83, 0.88) and private insurance (0.91, 0.85) were associated with higher likelihood of reaching MCID at 90 days and 1 year, respectively. Several key unique demographic risk factors were identified in this cohort study that precluded optimal postoperative functional outcomes after elective lumbar spine surgery. With this information, appropriate preoperative counseling can be administered to assist in shaping patient expectations.

Impact of unplanned readmissions on lumbar surgery outcomes: a national study of 33,447 patients

Background ContextUnplanned readmissions following lumbar spine surgery have immense clinical and financial implications. However, little is known regarding the impact of unplanned readmissions on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) following lumbar spine surgery. PurposeTo evaluate the impact of unplanned readmissions, including specific readmission reasons, on patient reported outcomes 12 months after lumbar spine surgery. Study Design/SettingA retrospective cohort study of prospectively collected data was conducted using patients included in the lumbar module of the Quality and Outcomes Database (QOD), a national, multicenter spine registry. Patient SampleA total of 33,447 patients who underwent elective lumbar spine surgery for degenerative diseases were included. Mean age was 59.8 (SD=14.04), 53.6% were male, 89.5% were white, 45.9% were employed, and 47.5% had private insurance. Outcome MeasuresUnplanned 90-day readmissions and 12-month patient-reported outcomes (PROs) including numeric rating scale (NRS) scores for back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores, EuroQol-5 Dimension (EQ-5D) scores, and North American Spine Society (NASS) patient-satisfaction scores. MethodsThe lumbar module of the QOD was queried for adults undergoing elective lumbar spine surgery for degenerative disease. Unplanned 90-day readmissions were classified into 4 groups: medical, surgical, pain-only, and no readmissions. Medical and surgical readmissions were further categorized into primary reason for readmission. 12-month PROs assessing patient back and leg pain (NRS), disability (ODI), quality of life (EQ-5D), and patient satisfaction were collected. Multivariable models predicting 12-month PROs were built controlling for covariates. ResultsA total of 31,430 patients (94%) had no unplanned readmission while 2,017 patients (6%) had an unplanned readmission within 90 days following lumbar surgery. Patients with readmissions had significantly worse 12-month PROs compared with those with no unplanned readmissions in covariate-adjusted models. Using Wald-df as a measure of predictor importance, surgical readmissions were associated with the worst 12-month outcomes, followed by pain-only, then medical readmissions. In separate covariate adjusted models, we found that readmissions for pain, SSI/wound dehiscence, and revisions were among the most important predictors of worse outcomes at 12-months. ConclusionsUnplanned 90-day readmissions were associated with worse pain, disability, quality of life, and greater dissatisfaction at 12-months, with surgical readmissions having the greatest impact, followed by pain-only readmissions, then medical readmissions. Readmissions for pain, SSI/wound dehiscence, and revisions were the most important predictors of worse outcomes. These results may help providers better understand the factors that impact outcomes following lumbar spine surgery and promote improved patient counseling and perioperative management.

Comparison of Intranasal Versus Intravenous Dexmedetomidine to Attenuate Haemodynamic Response of Laryngoscopy and Endotracheal Intubation in Elective Lumbar Spine Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Study

Background: In general anaesthesia, hemodynamic alterations during endotracheal intubation are vital concerns. The efficacy of intranasal and intravenous Dexmedetomidine (DEX) in decreasing the stress response generated by laryngoscopy and endotracheal intubation was investigated in this study. Methods: Seventy adults were randomised into two groups in this prospective, randomised, double-blind study: Group DIV (n=35) and Group DIN (n=35). Dexmedetomidine (DEX) infusion (0.5 μg /kg) was administered intravenously over 40 minutes to the DIV group and intranasally (1 μg /kg) to the DIN group 40 minutes before induction. The primary outcome was to compare the mean arterial pressure (MAP) between the two groups starting 40 minutes before induction and continuing every 10 minutes until induction of anaesthesia, at the time of intubation, and then every minute afterwards until 5 minutes, 7 minutes, and 10 minutes following intubation. Comparisons of heart rate (HR), systolic (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP), sedation and any adverse effects were the secondary outcomes. Results: The two groups had no statistically significant difference in MAP, HR, SBP and DBP. The DIV group's preoperative sedation score before induction was significantly higher than the DIN group's (P = 0.014). Conclusion: This study demonstrates that dexmedetomidine administered intravenously is equally efficient as intranasal dexmedetomidine in attenuating hemodynamic response during laryngoscopy and intubation.

Spinal anesthesia in elective lumbar spinal surgery.

Spinal anesthesia (SA) is gaining recognition as a safe and efficacious regional alternative to general anesthesia for elective lumbar surgery. However, unfamiliarity with management issues related to its use has limited the adoption of awake spine surgery, despite its benefits. Few centers in the United States routinely offer SA for elective lumbar surgery, and a comprehensive workflow to standardize SA for lumbar surgery is lacking. In this article, we examine recent literature on the use of SA in lumbar surgery, review the experience of our institution with SA in lumbar surgery, and provide a cohesive outline to streamline the implementation of SA from the perspective of the anesthesiologist. We review the critical features of SA in contemporary lumbar surgery, including selection of patients, methods of SA, intraoperative sedation, and management of several important technical considerations. We aimed to flatten the learning curve to improve the availability and accessibility of the technique for eligible patients.

COMPARISON OF BILATERAL USG-GUIDED ERECTOR SPINAE BLOCK VERSUS CONTROL GROUP FOR INTRAOPERATIVE HEMODYNAMIC STABILITY AND POST-OPERATIVE ANALGESIA IN SPINE SURGERIES UNDER GENERAL ANESTHESIA

Objectives: The aim of the study was to compare the intraoperative hemodynamics and post-operative analgesia after using bilateral erector spinae block (ESB) and conventional techniques during spinal surgeries. The study also aims at comparison of analgesics consumption in patients during post-operative period. Methods: One hundred adults aged 18–80 years with American Society of Anaesthesiology physical status I/II scheduled for elective lumbar spine surgeries (two levels) under general anesthesia (GA) were divided into two groups. Group A received erector spinae plane block (ESPB) along with GA and Group B received GA only. Injection Paracetamol 1 g intravenously was given as rescue analgesia. Intraoperative hemodynamics, visual analog score at rest and at movement in 24 h postoperatively, first rescue analgesia, total dose of analgesics in first 24 h postoperatively, and intraoperative opioid dose requirement were compared in both the groups for 7 days. Results: Intraoperative hemodynamics in ESPB group were found to be more stable than the control group. There was a significant low VAS score in Group A compare to Group B at rest and on movement (p&lt;0.001). The time for first rescue analgesia was prolonged in group ESPB as compared to control group (p&lt;0.05). The total dose of analgesia required in first 24 h was significantly lower in patients of ESP group 25±41.96 mg 82.5 than patients in control group ±22.73 mg. Conclusion: Ultrasound-guided bilateral ESB provides profound intraoperative hemodynamic stability with perioperative analgesia in comparison to conventional GA technique. The present study concluded that ESP block decreased the opioid requirement in both intraoperative and post-operative period.

Effectiveness of Gentamicin Wound Irrigation in Preventing Surgical Site Infection During Lumbar Spine Surgery: A Retrospective Study at a Rural Teaching Hospital in India.

Surgical site infections (SSIs) are an opposing result of surgery and account for the majority of healthcare-related infections worldwide. It is one of the most common complications associated with open-spine surgery and is associated with high rates of mortality and high demand for healthcare resources. Surgical site infections are the result of a variety of reasons, which is why a range of prevention strategies have been proposed. Intraoperative wound irrigation (IOWI) is a simple procedure that involves moving a solution through an open wound to help hydrate the tissue. It is a type of prophylactic wound irrigation. It removes and dilutes bodily fluids, bacteria, and cellular debris. It may also act as a bactericidal agent when used with antibiotics and antiseptics. To evaluate the incidence of SSIin lumbar spine surgeries by comparing IOWI with normal saline containing gentamicin (NS-G) and normal saline (NS) alone. A hospital-based retrospective study was conducted among 40 patients who underwent elective lumbar spine surgery at the Department of Orthopaedics, RL Jalappa Hospital Centre, Kolar, Karnataka, India. Out of the total participants enrolled, 60% were males and 40% were females. There was no statistically significant difference found between mean age, mean BMI, mean hemoglobin level, mean WBC counts, and mean fasting blood sugar (FBS) levels among both groups. The overall prevalence of SSI among patients was 25%. In Group A (NS-G), the prevalence of SSI was 15%, and in Group B (NS), it was 35%. In total, 17.5% of study participants had superficial SSI, while 7.5% had deep SSI. Gentamicin, an aminoglycoside antibiotic, is bactericidal and efficient against gram-positive organisms likeStaphylococcus, the most frequent pathogen causing SSI in spine surgery. During lumbar spine surgery, IOWI with saline and gentamicin before closure is more effective in preventing SSI than simple saline irrigation.

Stress hormone response to instrumented elective lumbar spine fusion surgery.

To understand the systemic effect of major spine surgery, we investigated stress, anabolic and catabolic hormonal levels and their association with interleukin 6 (IL-6) in patients undergoing elective lumbar spine fusion surgery. Blood samples were collected preoperatively, and at 1, 3, 42, 90days postoperatively (POD) from 49 patients who underwent elective lumbar spine fusion surgery. Serum concentration of cortisol was below the preoperative value at POD 1 but did not differ from the baseline values thereafter. Adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) decreased at PODs 1 and 3. Testosterone decreased at PODs 1 and 3 in men, and at POD 3 in women. Sex hormone-binding globulin decreased at PODs 1 and 3 in both genders. No changes were observed in free testosterone or growth hormone concentrations. Insulin-like growth factor 1 increased significantly above the preoperative level at PODs 42 and 90 in women, and at POD 42 in men. IL-6 was significantly elevated at PODs 1 and 3. Increases in IL-6 from the preoperative level to POD 1 correlated significantly with decreases of cortisol at POD 1 but not with ACTH. There were only short-term stress hormonal changes after elective lumbar spine fusion surgery. Cortisol changes after elective lumbar spine surgery are transient and might be partly cytokine induced and non-ACTH driven since there was association between cortisol and IL-6 but not with ACTH and IL-6.

FLOSEAL Versus SURGIFLO in Lumbar Surgery: Similar Outcomes, Different Costs in a Matched Cohort Analysis

Flowable gelatin-based matrices with thrombin for hemostatic control are commercially available as Floseal (Baxter International Inc.) and Surgiflo (Ethicon Inc.). The objective of this study is to compare the rate of blood transfusions following the use of Floseal and Surgiflo in lumbar spine surgery. Elective lumbar spine surgery patients between September 2019 and March 2021 were identified via CPT codes. Floseal 10 mL (N=102) and Surgiflo matrix 8 mL (N=108) cohorts excluded those younger than 18 years or those who underwent surgeries for infection, trauma, or tumor. The primary outcome was blood transfusion. Surgical complexity was controlled using the Surgical Invasiveness Index and Adult Spinal Deformity Invasiveness Score. The 1:1 propensity score matching was performed using demographic information, Surgical Invasiveness Index, Adult Spinal Deformity Invasiveness Score, and tranexamic acid use. A total of 77 Floseal patients were propensity score matched with 77 Surgiflo patients. There was no difference in the rate of blood transfusion (p=0.441). There was also no difference in operative time, estimated blood loss, or postoperative hemoglobin levels. The Surgiflo cohort used more units per surgery (p=0.004) and cost $102.45 more per surgery. Switching to Floseal saves $102,450 per year per 1000 surgeries. There was no difference in transfusion rates between using Floseal or Surgiflo for lumbar spine surgery. Surgiflo had higher usage per surgery and costs than Floseal.

Spine

The June 2023 Spine Roundup360 looks at: Characteristics and comparative study of thoracolumbar spine injury and dislocation fracture due to tertiary trauma; Sublingual sufentanil for postoperative pain management after lumbar spinal fusion surgery; Minimally invasive bipolar technique for adult neuromuscular scoliosis; Predictive factors for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis; Lumbosacral transitional vertebrae and lumbar fusion surgery at level L4/5; Does recall of preoperative scores contaminate trial outcomes? A randomized controlled trial; Vancomycin in fibrin glue for prevention of SSI; Perioperative nutritional supplementation decreases wound healing complications following elective lumbar spine surgery: a randomized controlled trial.

The spine intra-abdominal pressure (SIAP) trial. A prospective, observational, single arm, monocenter study looking at the evolutions of the IAP prior, during and after spine surgery

Background and aimsBoth anaesthesiologists and spine surgeons consider the intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) as an important peri-operative factor affected by patient positioning.We assessed the change in IAP caused by using a thoraco pelvic support (inflatable prone support, IPS) with the subject under general anesthesia. The IAP was measured before, during and immediately after surgery. MethodsThe Spine Intra-Abdominal Pressure study (SIAP trial) is a prospective, single-arm, monocenter, observational study looking at changes in IAP prior, during and after spine surgery. The objective is to assess the change in IAP, measured via an indwelling urinary catheter, using the inflatable prone support (IPS) device during prone positioning of patients in spinal surgery. ResultsForty (40) subjects requiring elective lumbar spine surgery in prone position were enrolled after providing informed consent. The inflation of the IPS results in a significant decrease of IAP (from a median of 9.2 mmHg to 6.46 mmHg (p < 0.001)) in patients undergoing spine surgery in prone position. This decrease in IAP was maintained throughout the procedure despite the discontinuation of muscle relaxants. No serious adverse events or unexpected adverse events occurred. ConclusionThe use of the thoraco-pelvic support IPS device was able to significantly lower the IAP during spine surgery.

Other Factors that Can Affect Wound Healing With Elective Lumbar Spine Surgery and Perioperative Nutritional Supplementation in Patients.

Department of Medicine, Rowan University School of Osteopathic Medicine, Stratford, NJ Funding: No funding was received for this study/paper. Competing interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Address correspondence and reprint requests to Ajani Morgan, MS, Department of Medicine, Rowan School of Osteopathic Medicine, 1 Medical Center Dr, Stratford, NJ 08084; E-mail: [email protected]

426 Utility of the Fried Phenotype as a Frailty Assessment Tool in Predicting Post-Operative Outcomes in Lumbar Degenerative Spine Surgery Patients

INTRODUCTION: Frailty is a syndrome of physiological decline that can predispose surgical patients to increased peri-operative morbidity. The Fried phenotype is a clinical measure of frailty and categorizes patients’ frailty based on grip strength, walking speed, unintentional weight loss, low physical activity, and exhaustion. It has been validated in non-spine surgical populations and has been shown to be correlated with poor postoperative outcomes and longer hospital lengths of stay (LOS); it has not yet been validated in patients undergoing spine surgery. Other assessment tools, including the Modified Frailty Index-11 (mFI-11) and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), are calculated based on comorbidities. The mFI-11 has previously been studied in spine patients - a higher mFI-11 score has been associated with a higher risk of post-operative morbidity and mortality. METHODS: Patients &gt;65 years of age who underwent elective lumbar spine surgery for degenerative disease since 2015 were included. Data for the Fried phenotype, mFI-11, CCI, and outcomes were gathered for each patient. ROC curves were generated, and multivariate analyses were performed. RESULTS: 248 patients (128 females; 120 males) with an average age of 71.8 years were included. The median Fried score was 1, median CCI was 1, and median mFI-11 was 0.18. The median LOS was 4 days, with 11 30-day re-admissions. Fried phenotype was found to be the best predictor of an extended LOS and of a non-home discharge. CONCLUSIONS: The Fried phenotype is now shown to be a validated measure of frailty in the spine population. Because it relies on categories that are impacted by the patient's functional condition (instead of the comorbidity burden), it has profound implications for optimizing patients through pre-habilitation prior to elective surgery.

Preventing Postoperative Urinary Retention (POUR) in Patients Undergoing Elective Lumbar Surgery: A Quality Improvement Project.

Postoperative urinary retention (POUR) is associated with significant morbidity. Our institution's POUR rate was elevated among patients undergoing elective lumbar spinal surgery. We sought to demonstrate that our quality improvement (QI) intervention would significantly lower our POUR rate and length of stay (LOS). A resident-led QI intervention was implemented from October 2017 to 2018 on 422 patients in an academically affiliated community teaching hospital. This consisted of standardized intraoperative indwelling catheter utilization, postoperative catheterization protocol, prophylactic tamsulosin, and early ambulation after surgery. Baseline data on 277 patients were collected retrospectively from October 2015 to September 2016. Primary outcomes were POUR and LOS. The focus, analyze, develop, execute, and evaluate (FADE) model was used. Multivariable analyses were used. P value <.05 was considered significant. We analyzed 699 patients (277 pre-intervention vs 422 post-intervention). The POUR rate (6.9% vs 2.6%, Δ confidence interval [CI] 1.15-8.08, P = .007) and mean LOS (2.94 ± 1.87 days vs 2.56 ± 2.2 days, Δ CI 0.066-0.68, P = .017) were significantly improved following our intervention. Logistic regression demonstrated that the intervention was independently associated with significantly decreased odds for developing POUR (odds ratio [OR] = 0.38, CI 0.17-0.83, P = .015). Diabetes (OR = 2.25, CI 1.03-4.92, P = .04) and longer surgery duration (OR = 1.006, CI 1.002-1.01, P = .002) were independently associated with increased odds of developing POUR. After implementing our POUR QI project for patients undergoing elective lumbar spine surgery, the institutional POUR rate significantly decreased by 4.3% (62% reduction) and LOS, by 0.37 days. We demonstrated that a standardized POUR care bundle was independently associated with a significant decrease in the odds of developing POUR.