Spine Surgery Literature Research Articles

Predictors of time to achieve clinically significant improvements following lateral lumbar interbody fusion

BackgroundAs lateral lumbar interbody fusions (LLIF) are increasingly performed, our understanding of postoperative clinical trajectories is important in informing preoperative patient expectations. While minimum clinically important difference (MCID) rates are widely utilized in spine surgery literature, there is less published on how long it takes for patients to achieve MCID following LLIF. ObjectiveTo evaluate the length of time it takes for patients to report MCID achievement for back pain, leg pain, disability, and physical function and evaluate predictors of time to achieve MCID. MethodsPatients undergoing elective LLIF by the senior author with baseline and postoperative patient-reported outcomes (PROs) recorded were retrospectively identified. Data on potential predictors of time to MCID achievement were gathered including demographics, comorbidities, diagnostic information, and baseline PROs. MCID achievement rates for Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Visual Analog Scale-Back (VAS-Back), VAS-Leg, and Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System-Physical Function (PROMIS-PF) were calculated at six-, twelve, 6 month- 1 year- and 2-year postoperative timepoints. A Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was conducted to determine the proportion of patients achieving MCID at each time point. A multivariate Cox regression determined predictors of time to MCID achievement. ResultsOne hundred-five patients were included in the analysis. The mean time to achieve MCID for PROMIS-PF was 44.7 weeks, for VAS-Back was 38.5 weeks, for VAS-Leg was 36.7 weeks, and for ODI was 38.3 weeks. Worse baseline VAS-Back significantly predicted earlier MCID achievement for VAS-Back (HR: 1.55), while diabetes was predictive of later MCID achievement (HR: 0.21). Higher body mass index and worse preoperative ODI predicted earlier MCID achievement for ODI (HR: 1.04–1.08), and higher VAS-Leg score and two-level fusion were predictive of later MCID achievement for ODI, (HR:0.26–0.81). Worse preoperative VAS-Leg, isthmic spondylolisthesis, and three-level fusion were predictors of earlier achievement of MCID for VAS-Leg (HR: 1.27–6.47). Herniated nucleus pulposus and foraminal stenosis were early predictors (HR: 2.92–3.23) and workers’ compensation was a late predictor of MCID attainment for PROMIS-PF (HR: 0.13). ConclusionSelect demographic variables, comorbidities, spinal pathology, and preoperative PROs influenced the time it took for patients to report clinically significant improvements in pain, disability, and physical function scores. These findings can be used to prognosticate outcomes for patients undergoing LLIF and inform patient expectations of postoperative recovery.

Assessing the potential role of ChatGPT in spine surgery research.

Since its release in November 2022, Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer 3.5 (ChatGPT), a complex machine learning model, has garnered more than 100 million users worldwide. The aim of this study is to determine how well ChatGPT can generate novel systematic review ideas on topics within spine surgery. ChatGPT was instructed to give ten novel systematic review ideas for five popular topics in spine surgery literature: microdiscectomy, laminectomy, spinal fusion, kyphoplasty and disc replacement. A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE and Cochrane. The number of nonsystematic review articles and number of systematic review papers that had been published on each ChatGPT-generated idea were recorded. Overall, ChatGPT had a 68% accuracy rate in creating novel systematic review ideas. More specifically, the accuracy rates were 80%, 80%, 40%, 70% and 70% for microdiscectomy, laminectomy, spinal fusion, kyphoplasty and disc replacement, respectively. However, there was a 32% rate of ChatGPT generating ideas for which there were 0 nonsystematic review articles published. There was a 71.4%, 50%, 22.2%, 50%, 62.5% and 51.2% success rate of generating novel systematic review ideas, for which there were also nonsystematic reviews published, for microdiscectomy, laminectomy, spinal fusion, kyphoplasty, disc replacement and overall, respectively. ChatGPT generated novel systematic review ideas at an overall rate of 68%. ChatGPT can help identify knowledge gaps in spine research that warrant further investigation, when used under supervision of an experienced spine specialist. This technology can be erroneous and lacks intrinsic logic; so, it should never be used in isolation. Not applicable.

Antibiotic use in spine surgery: A narrative review based in principles of antibiotic stewardship

BackgroundA growing emphasis on antibiotic stewardship has led to extensive literature regarding antibiotic use in spine surgery for surgical prophylaxis and the treatment of spinal infections. PurposeThis article aims to review principles of antibiotic stewardship, evidence-based guidelines for surgical prophylaxis and ways to optimize antibiotics use in the treatment of spinal infections. MethodsA narrative review of several society guidelines and spine surgery literature was conducted. ResultsAntibiotic stewardship in spine surgery requires multidisciplinary investment and consistent evaluation of antibiotic use for drug selection, dose, duration, drug-route, and de-escalation. Developing effective surgical prophylaxis regimens is a key strategy in reducing the burden of antibiotic resistance. For treatment of primary spinal infection, the diagnostic work-up is vital in tailoring effective antibiotic therapy. The future of antibiotics in spine surgery will be highly influenced by improving surgical technique and evidence regarding the role of bacteria in the pathogenesis of degenerative spinal pathology. ConclusionsIncorporating evidence-based guidelines into regular practice will serve to limit the development of resistance while preventing morbidity from spinal infection. Further research should be conducted to provide more evidence for surgical site infection prevention and treatment of spinal infections.

Publication retraction in spine surgery: a systematic review.

The number of articles retracted by peer-reviewed journals has increased in recent years. This study systematically reviews retracted publications in the spine surgery literature. A search of PubMed MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Retraction Watch, and the independent websites of 15 spine surgery-related journals from inception to September of 2022 was performed without language restrictions. PRISMA guidelines were followed with title/abstract screening, and full-text screening was conducted independently and in duplicate by two reviewers. Study characteristics and bibliometric information for each publication was extracted. Of 250 studies collected from the search, 65 met the inclusion criteria. The most common reason for retraction was data error (n = 15, 21.13%), followed by plagiarism (n = 14, 19.72%) and submission to another journal (n = 14, 19.72%). Most studies pertained to degenerative pathologies of the spine (n = 32, 80.00%). Most articles had no indication of retraction in their manuscript (n = 24, 36.92%), while others had a watermark or notice at the beginning of the article. The median number of citations per retracted publication was 10.0 (IQR 3-29), and the median 4-year impact factor of the journals was 5.05 (IQR 3.20-6.50). On multivariable linear regression, the difference inyears from publication to retraction (p = 0.0343, β = 6.56, 95% CI 0.50-12.62) and the journal 4-year impact factor (p = 0.0029, β = 7.47, 95% CI 2.66-12.28) were positively associated with the total number of citations per retracted publication. Most articles originated from China (n = 30, 46.15%) followed by the United States (n = 12, 18.46%) and Germany (n = 3, 4.62%). The most common study design was retrospective cohort studies (n = 14, 21.54%). The retraction of publications has increased in recent years in spine surgery. Researchers consulting this body of literature should remain vigilant. Institutions and journals should collaborate to increase publication transparency and scientific integrity.

The use of machine learning for predicting candidates for outpatient spine surgery: a review.

While spine surgery has historically been performed in the inpatient setting, in recent years there has been growing interest in performing certain cervical and lumbar spine procedures on an outpatient basis. While conducting these procedures in the outpatient setting may be preferable for both the surgeon and the patient, appropriate patient selection is crucial. The employment of machine learning techniques for data analysis and outcome prediction has grown in recent years within spine surgery literature. Machine learning is a form of statistics often applied to large datasets that creates predictive models, with minimal to no human intervention, that can be applied to previously unseen data. Machine learning techniques may outperform traditional logistic regression with regards to predictive accuracy when analyzing complex datasets. Researchers have applied machine learning to develop algorithms to aid in patient selection for spinal surgery and to predict postoperative outcomes. Furthermore, there has been increasing interest in using machine learning to assist in the selection of patients who may be appropriate candidates for outpatient cervical and lumbar spine surgery. The goal of this review is to discuss the current literature utilizing machine learning to predict appropriate patients for cervical and lumbar spine surgery, candidates for outpatient spine surgery, and outcomes following these procedures.

Values derived from patient reported outcomes in spine surgery: a systematic review of the minimal clinically important difference, substantial clinical benefit, and patient acceptable symptom state.

While patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) define value in spine surgery, several values such as minimal clinically important difference (MCID), substantial clinical benefit (SCB), and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) help guide the interpretation of PROMs and identify thresholds of clinical significance. Significant variation exists in reported values and their calculation, so the primary objective of this study was to systematically review the spine surgery literature for metrics of clinical significance derived from PROMs. We conducted a query of PubMed/MEDLINE and Scopus databases from inception to January 1, 2023, for studies that derived quantitative metrics (e.g., SCB, MCID, PASS) from PROMs in the setting of spine surgery with minimum 1-year follow-up. Details regarding the specific PROMs were collected including which PROM was measured, whether anchor- or distribution-based methods were utilized, the specific calculations, and the recommended value for a given PROM based on all evaluated calculations. Thirty-seven studies of 21,780 patients were included. The most commonly evaluated PROM-derived value was the MCID (n = 28), followed by PASS (n = 6) and SCB (n = 4). Twenty-one studies only utilized anchor-based calculations, 15 utilized both anchor-based and distribution-based methods, and one only utilized distribution-based calculations. The most commonly evaluated legacy PROMs were the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) (N = 11, MCID range 4-20) and visual analog scale back pain (N = 5, MCID range 0.5-4.6). All 10 studies that derived SCB or PASS utilized the receiver operating characteristic methods. Among the six studies deriving a PASS value, four only evaluated ODI, identifying PASS ranging from 5 to 22. While calculated measures of clinical significance such as MCID, PASS, and SCB exist, significant heterogeneity exists in the current literature. Current shortcomings include a wide variability of reported value thresholds across the literature, and limited applicability to more heterogenous patient populations than the targeted cohorts included in published investigations. Continued investigations that apply these methods to heterogenous, large-scale populations can help increase generalizability and validity of these measures. III.

The 5-Factor Modified Frailty Index Score Predicts Return to the Operating Room for Patients Undergoing Posterior Spinal Fusion for Traumatic Spine Injury

Within the trauma spine surgery literature, the effect of patient frailty on postoperative outcomes for posterior spinal fusion (PSF) remains clear. In this study, the authors quantified the influence of the mFI-5 score on hospital length of stay (LOS), diagnosis of a postoperative infection, 30-day readmission and 90-day return to OR. The authors retrospectively reviewed the records of all patients with traumatic spine injury undergoing PSF by a single surgeon at our institution from 2016 to 2021. Data was extracted using manual chart review and the mFI-5 score was calculated using data on comorbidities. Bivariate (Mann-Whitney U-test and Fisher's exact test) and multivariate regressions (linear and logistic) revealed whether there was an independent relationship between patient frailty and postoperative outcomes. The patient cohort included 263 patients (52.00 ± 19.04), 67 (25.5) were classified as frail, defined as having an mFI-5 sore greater than or equal to 2. Patients who were classified as frail were significantly more likely to have diabetes (OR = 21.53, p<0.001) and active cancer (OR = 10.03, p = 0.004). Patients with mFI-5 scores greater than or equal to 2 were also significantly older (p<0.001) and had higher BMIs (p=0.007) Patients with mFI-5 scores greater than 2 were more likely to return to the OR (OR = 2.43, p=0.037) on bivariate analysis. When controlling for demographics and clinical characteristics, mFI-5 score independently predicted return to OR (OR = 1.294, p-value = 0.041). Patient frailty independently predicted a return to OR in patients undergoing PSF for traumatic spine injury. Future studies can investigate methods for patient risk optimization to reduce morbidity and mortality.

Correlation between bone density measurements on CT or MRI versus DEXA scan: A systematic review

BackgroundNovel methods of bone density assessment using computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) have been increasingly reported in the spine surgery literature. Correlations between these newer measurements and traditional Dual-Energy X-ray Absorptiometry (DEXA) is not well known. The purpose of this study is to perform an updated systematic review of correlations between bone mineral density (BMD) from CT or MRI and DEXA. MethodsArticles published between 2011 and 2021 that reported correlations between the CT-HU or MRI measurements to DEXA t-scores or BMD of lumbar spine or hip were included in this systematic review. ResultsA total of 25 studies (15 CT, 10 MRI) met the inclusion criteria with a total number of 2,745 patients. The pooled correlation coefficient of spine CT-HU versus spine DEXA, spine CT-HU versus hip DEXA and spine CT-HU versus lowest t-score were 0.60, 0.50 and 0.60 respectively. Regarding spine DEXA parameters, the pooled r2 for spine CT-HU versus spine t-score was 0.684 and spine CT-HU versus spine BMD was 0.598. Furthermore, in patients undergoing spine surgery in four studies, the pooled correlation between spine CT and spine DEXA was (r2: 0.64). In MRI studies, the pooled r2 of spine MRI versus spine DEXA and spine MRI versus hip DEXA were -0.41 and -0.44 respectively. ConclusionsCT-HU has stronger correlations with DEXA than MRI measurements. Lumbar CT-HU has the highest pooled correlation (r2 = 0.6) with both spine DEXA and lowest skeletal t-score followed by lumbar CT-HU with hip DEXA (r2 = 0.5) and lumbar MRI with hip (r2 = 0.44) and spine (r2 = 0.41) DEXA. Both imaging modalities achieved only a moderate correlation with DEXA. Few studies in both modalities have investigated the correlation in spine surgery populations and the available data shows that the correlations are worse in the degenerative spine population. A careful interruption of CT HU and MRI measurement when evaluation of BMD as they only moderately correlated with DEXA scores. At this time, it is unclear which modality is a better predictor of mechanical complications and clinical outcomes in spine surgery patients.

Spine Surgery Assisted by Augmented Reality: Where Have We Been?

This present systematic review examines spine surgery literature supporting augmented reality (AR) technology and summarizes its current status in spinal surgery technology. Database search strategies were retrieved from PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase, from the earliest records to April 1, 2021. Our review briefly examines the history of AR, and enumerates different device application workflows in a variety of spinal surgeries. We also sort out the pros and cons of current mainstream AR devices and the latest updates. A total of 45 articles are included in our review. The most prevalent surgical applications included are the augmented reality surgical navigation system and head-mounted display. The most popular application of AR is pedicle screw instrumentation in spine surgery, and the primary responsible surgical levels are thoracic and lumbar. AR guidance systems show high potential value in practical clinical applications for the spine. The overall number of cases in AR-related studies is still rare compared to traditional surgical-assisted techniques. These lack long-term clinical efficacy and robust surgical-related statistical data. Changing healthcare laws as well as the increasing prevalence of spinal surgery are generating critical data that determines the value of AR technology.

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) for open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a retrospective propensity-matched cohort study

BACKGROUNDThe enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol is a multidisciplinary, multimodal approach which has been shown to facilitate recovery of physiological function, and reduce postoperative pain, complication rates, and length of stay without adversely affecting readmission rates. Design and implementation of ERAS protocols in the recent spine surgery literature has primarily focused on patients undergoing minimally invasive lumbar surgery. However, conventional open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) remains a common procedure and to date there are no studies assessing an ERAS protocol in this patient population. PURPOSEThis study presents a single surgeon experience implementing an ERAS protocol in patients undergoing 1- or 2-level open TLIF. STUDY DESIGN/SETTINGRetrospective consecutive patient cohort with controls propensity-matched for age, body mass index, sex, and smoking status. PATIENT SAMPLEConsecutive patients that underwent 1- or 2-level open TLIF for degenerative disease from 12/2018 – 02/2021 and controls from 12/2011-12/2017 by a single surgeon. ERAS was implemented in December 2018. OUTCOME MEASURESPrimary: length of stay; Secondary: first day to ambulate, first day to bowel movement, first day to void, daily average and maximum pain scores, opioid use, discharge disposition, 30-day readmission rate, and re-operations. METHODSDemographic, perioperative, clinical, radiographic data were collected. Multivariate mixed-linear regression models were developed for length of stay, physiological function, pain scales, and opiate use. RESULTSThere were 114 patients included with 57 in each cohort. After propensity matching, patient characteristics were similar between groups. Operative time decreased significantly after institution of ERAS (170±44 vs. 141±37 minutes, p <.0001) as did length of stay (4.6±1.7 vs. 3.6±1.6 days, p<.0001). First day of ambulation, bowel movement, and bladder voiding improved by 0.8 (p<.0001), 0.7 (p=.008), and 0.8 (p<.0001) days, respectively, in the ERAS cohort. Total daily intravenous morphine milligram equivalent (MME) (8±9 vs. 36±38, p<0.0001) and total 72-hour MME consumption (53±33 vs. 68±48, p<.0001) was significantly lower in the ERAS cohort; however, 72-hour MME consumption was not found to be significantly different in a sensitivity analysis controlling for preoperative MME. Average daily pain scores were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONSConsistent with other studies demonstrating benefit of an ERAS protocol for minimally invasive spine procedures, ERAS was associated with decreased operative time, reduced length of stay, decrease in IV opioid consumption, and improved physiological outcomes for open 1- and 2-level TLIF. ERAS can be a potentially effective strategy for improving patient outcome and efficiency of healthcare resources for common conventional spinal surgeries such as open TLIF.

Retrospective Analysis of Causes and Risk Factors of 30-Day Readmission After Spine Surgery for Thoracolumbar Trauma.

Retrospective Case Series. This study aims to evaluate readmission rates, risk factors, and reason for unplanned 30-day readmissions after thoracolumbar spine trauma surgery. A retrospective chart review was conducted for patients undergoing operative treatment for thoracic or lumbar trauma with open or minimally invasive surgical approach at a Level 1 urban trauma center. Patients were divided into two groups based on 30-day readmission status. Reason for readmission, reoperation rates, injury type, trauma severity, and incidence of polytrauma were compared between the two groups. A total of 312 patients, 69.9% male with an average age of 47 ± 19years were included. The readmitted group included 16 patients (5.1%) of which 9 (56%) were readmitted for medical complications and 7 for surgical complications. Wound complications (31.3% of readmissions) were the most common cause of readmission, followed by non-wound related sepsis (18.9% of readmissions). A total of 6 patients (37.5%) required reoperation; 2 instrumentation failures underwent revision surgery, and 4 wound complications underwent irrigation and debridement. Patients with higher Injury Severity Scale (ISS) were more likely to be readmitted (27.8% vs 22.1%, P = .045). Concomitant lower limb surgery increased odds of readmission (OR, 4.40; 95% CI, 1.10-17.83; P = .037). Spine trauma 30-day readmission rate was 5.1%, comparable to those reported in the elective spine surgery literature. Readmitted patients were more likely to sustain concomitant operative lower limb trauma. Wound complications were the most common cause of readmission, and almost half of the patients were readmitted due to surgery-related complications.

Intraoperative Ultrasound in Spine Decompression Surgery: A Systematic Review.

Systematic review. The aim of this study was to review the current spine surgery literature to establish a definition for adequate spine decompression using intraoperative ultrasound (IOUS) imaging. IOUS remains one of the few imaging modalities that allows spine surgeons to continuously monitor the spinal cord in real-time, while also allowing visualization of surrounding soft tissue anatomy during an operation. Although this has valuable applications for decompression surgery in spinal canal stenosis, it remains unclear how to best characterize adequacy of spinal decompression using IOUS. We conducted a systematic search of multiple databases including: Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials Strategy. Our search terms were spine, spinal cord diseases, decompression surgery, ultrasonogra-phy, and intraoperative period. We were interested in studies that used intraoperative use of ultrasound imaging in spinal decompression surgery for the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine. Study quality was evaluated using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS). Our search strategy yielded 985 of potentially relevant publications, 776 underwent title and abstract screening, and 31 full-text articles were reviewed. We found IOUS to be useful in spine surgery for decompression of degenerative cases in all regions of the spine. The thoracic spine was unique for IOUS-guided decompression of fractures, and the lumbar spine for decompressing nerve roots. Although we did not identify a universal definition for adequate decompression, there was common description of decompression that qualitatively described the ventral aspect of the spinal cord being "free floating" within the cerebrospinal fluid. Other measurable definitions, such as spinal cord diameter or spinal cord pulsatility, were not good definitions given there was insufficient evidence and/or poor reliability. The systematic review examines the current literature on IOUS and spinal decompression surgery. We identified a common qualitative definition for adequate decompression involving a "free floating" spinal cord within the cerebrospinal fluid which indicates that the spinal cord is free from contact of the anterior elements.Level of Evidence: 1.

Predictors of Patient Satisfaction in Spine Surgery: A Systematic Review

Recently, there has been increased interest in patient satisfaction measures such as Press Ganey and Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) surveys. In this systematic review, the spine surgery literature is analyzed to evaluate factors predictive of patient satisfaction as measured by these surveys. A thorough literature search was performed in PubMed/MEDLINE, Google Scholar, and Cochrane databases. All English-language articles from database inception to July 2020 were screened for study inclusion according to PRISMA guidelines. Twenty-four of the 1899 published studies were included for qualitative analysis. There has been a statistically significant increase in the number of publications across years (P= 0.04). Overall, the studies evaluated the relationship between patient satisfaction and patient demographics (71%), preoperative and intraoperative clinical factors (21%), and postoperative factors (33%). Top positive predictors of patient satisfaction were patient and nursing/medical staff relationship (n= 4; 17%), physician-patient relationship (n= 4; 17%), managerial oversight of received care (n= 3; 13%), same sex/ethnicity between patient and physician (n= 2; 8%), and older age (n= 2; 8%). Top negative predictors of patient satisfaction were high Charlson Comorbidity Index/high disability/worse overall health functioning (n= 7; 29%), increased length of hospital stay (n= 4; 17%), high rating for pain/complications/readmissions (n= 4; 17%), and psychosocial factors (n= 3; 13%). There is heterogeneity in terms of different factors, both clinical and nonclinically related, that affect patient satisfaction ratings. More research is warranted to investigate the role of hospital consumer surveys in the spine surgical patient population.

P60. The top 100 spine surgery articles on social media: an altmetric study

BACKGROUND CONTEXT This study aims to discern how social media outlets contributed to spine surgery literature dissemination and to investigate how popular articles compared to articles with most citations. Scientific literature is increasingly distributed via social media. The influence of social media on the promulgation of orthopedic spine surgery literature has not been investigated. The Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) is calculated from each article's social media presence in outlets such as news, blogs, Facebook, Twitter, etc. PURPOSE This study will determine if any factors are associated with online popularity as measured by AAS. The primary aim of this investigation is to discern what social media outlets most contribute to dissemination of spine surgery literature. Our secondary purpose is to investigate how article popularity compares to traditional metrics such as citations and impact factors. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING Retrospective. PATIENT SAMPLE A total of 13,601 peer-reviewed articles on spine surgery were included. OUTCOME MEASURES AAS, social media presence, citation number. METHODS The Altmetric database was used to perform a search of nine spine surgery journals from January 2010-October 2019. AAS-related variable averages were summarized alongside metrics such as citation count and impact factor. Spearman rank and time-controlled partial correlations examined the association between AAS and online sources, readers and citations. Journals were grouped by impact factor, and an analysis-of-variance compared mean AAS. The 100 highest AAS articles were compared to the 100 most cited. RESULTS A total of 13,601 articles included. The mean AAS was 5.3 ± 29.8, with Twitter contributing the most (4.5). The three highest associations were Twitter (0.649 vs 0.755), news (0.537 vs 0.857), and Facebook (0.409 vs 0.501). There was no significance between impact factor and AAS. Comparing the top 100 AAS articles to those with most citations, the most popular articles on social media had more article types (10 types vs 5 types), more prospective studies (42 vs 21), fewer retrospective studies (22 vs 40), fewer reviews (7 vs 17) and fewer systematic reviews (14 vs 20). Spine contributed the most articles in the top 100 AAS and citation sets. There is a weak correlation between impact factor and citation rate, and there is not statistically significant relationship between Altmetric attention score and impact factor (p CONCLUSIONS This is the first study using the AAS to evaluate social media underpinnings of peer-reviewed spine surgery literature dissemination. Our evaluation revealed Twitter, newsfeeds and Facebook were the most significant social media outlets. Compared to articles with the greatest citations, the most popular articles are prospective and encompass broader study designs. Social media plays an integral role in article dissemination in spine literature and the public sphere. FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs.

The Role of Machine Learning in Spine Surgery: The Future Is Now.

The recent influx of machine learning centered investigations in the spine surgery literature has led to increased enthusiasm as to the prospect of using artificial intelligence to create clinical decision support tools, optimize postoperative outcomes, and improve technologies used in the operating room. However, the methodology underlying machine learning in spine research is often overlooked as the subject matter is quite novel and may be foreign to practicing spine surgeons. Improper application of machine learning is a significant bioethics challenge, given the potential consequences of over- or underestimating the results of such studies for clinical decision-making processes. Proper peer review of these publications requires a baseline familiarity of the language associated with machine learning, and how it differs from classical statistical analyses. This narrative review first introduces the overall field of machine learning and its role in artificial intelligence, and defines basic terminology. In addition, common modalities for applying machine learning, including classification and regression decision trees, support vector machines, and artificial neural networks are examined in the context of examples gathered from the spine literature. Lastly, the ethical challenges associated with adapting machine learning for research related to patient care, as well as future perspectives on the potential use of machine learning in spine surgery, are discussed specifically.

Bone xenotransplantation: A review of the history, orthopedic clinical literature, and a single-center case series.

One-half of all orthopedic surgeries require bone grafting for successful outcomes in fusions, reconstructive procedures, and the treatment of osseous defects resulting from trauma, tumor, infection, or congenital deformity. Autologous bone grafts are taken from the patient's own body and remain the "gold standard" graft choice but are limited in supply and impart significant patient morbidity. Xenograft bone is an attractive alternative from donors with controlled biology, in large supply and at a theoretically lower cost. Clinical results with xenograft bone for orthopedic applications have been mixed in the limited clinical trials published. In the current review, we introduce fundamental principles of bone grafting, systematically review all orthopedic clinical studies reporting outcomes on patients transplanted with xenograft bone, and we present our own clinical results from patients grafted with bovine bone in foot and ankle reconstructive procedures. Thirty-one clinical studies were identified for review and the majority (47%) were from spine surgery literature. Favorable results were reported in 44% of studies while 47% of studies reported poor outcomes and discouraged use of xenograft bone products. In our own clinical series, xenograft failed to integrate with host bone in 58% of cases and persistent pain was reported in 83% of cases. This is the first systematic review of clinical results reported after bone xenotransplantation for orthopaedic surgery applications. Current literature does not support the use of xenograft bone products and our institution's results are consistent with this conclusion. Our laboratory has reported promising pre-clinical results with a xenograft product derived from porcine cancellous bone, but additional testing is required before considering clinical translation.

The Top 100 Spine Surgery Articles on Social Media: An Altmetric Study.

Literature review. To discern which social media outlets contribute most to spine surgery literature dissemination and to investigate how popular articles compare to articles with most citations. Scientific literature is increasingly disseminated through social media. The Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) is defined as an automated, weighted score calculation from counts of all online attention received by various research outputs. Increasing AAS values indicate more online attention. For example, the overall top 100 Altmetric spine surgery peer-reviewed articles since 2010 had an AAS range from 78 to 1537. Among all spine surgery literature reviewed since 2010, the mean AAS was 5.3 with a median of 1.0. We performed an Altmetric database search of nine spine surgery journals from January 2010 to October 2019. Mean AAS was summarized alongside metrics including citation count and impact factor. We assessed correlations between AAS and online sources, readers, and citations. Journals were grouped by impact factor, and analysis-of-variance compared mean AAS. The 100 highest AAS articles were compared to the most cited. 13,601 articles were included. The mean AAS was 5.3, with Twitter contributing the most. The three highest associations were news (P < 0.001), Twitter (P < 0.001), and Facebook (P < 0.001). There was no significant association between impact factor and AAS. Compared with the most cited articles, the top 100 AAS articles had significantly more article types, more prospective studies, fewer retrospective studies, fewer reviews, and fewer systematic reviews (P < 0.001 for all). Spine contributed the most articles in both top 100 sets. Our evaluation revealed Twitter, newsfeeds, and Facebook were the most significant social media outlets. Compared to articles with the most citations, the most popular articles are prospective and encompass broader study designs. Social media plays an integral role in dissemination, both within spine literature and the public sphere. 3.

Outcomes and value in elective cervical spine surgery: an introductory and practical narrative review.

How we determine a successful clinical outcome and the value of a spine intervention are two major questions surrounding clinical spine research. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs), both LEGACY and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measures, are becoming ubiquitous throughout the literature. Spine surgeons need a facile understanding of the financial landscape of their environment to influence change. In the current introductory, narrative review on outcomes and value in cervical spine surgery, we aim to: (I) define relevant outcome and cost terminology, (II) review recent cervical spine surgery literature, divided by specific pathology with a focus on LEGACY and PROMIS measures, and (III) discuss value and cost as they pertain to postoperative return to work and ambulatory surgery centers surgeries.

Nonhome Discharge as an Independent Risk Factor for Adverse Events and Readmission in Patients Undergoing Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion.

A retrospective study of a prospectively collected cohort. To characterize a cohort of patients who underwent anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and examine whether nonhome discharge (NHD) is associated with postdischarge adverse events (AEs) and readmission. Predictors of NHD have been elucidated in the spine surgery literature, and NHD has been tied to poor outcomes in the joint arthroplasty literature, but no such analysis exists for patients undergoing ACDF. All patients who underwent ACDF from 2012 to 2015 in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program were identified. Those who underwent concomitant posterior cervical operations were excluded. Patients who were discharged to home were compared with those discharged to nonhome destinations on the basis of demographics and outcomes. Multivariable models were created to assess whether NHD was an independent risk factor for postdischarge AEs and readmission. NHD patients were significantly older (63.96 vs. 53.57 y; P<0.0001), more functionally dependent (13.87% vs. 1.09%; P<0.0001), more likely to have body mass index >40 (9.38% vs. 7.51%; P=0.004), and more likely to have ASA Class >2 (77.89% vs. 39.57%; P<0.0001). Patients who underwent NHD were significantly more likely to suffer severe AEs (14.44% vs. 0.93%; P<0.0001), minor AEs (7.22% vs. 0.24%; P<0.0001), and infectious complications (3.58% vs. 0.13%; P<0.0001) before discharge. When examining AEs after discharge, patients who underwent NHD were more likely to suffer severe AEs (6.37% vs. 1.34%; P<0.0001), minor AEs (4.09% vs. 0.74%; P<0.0001), death (1.25% vs. 0.07%; P<0.0001), and unplanned readmission (10.12% vs. 3.06%; P<0.0001). In adjusted analysis, NHD was found to independently predict severe AEs after discharge (odds ratio, 2.40; 95% confidence interval, 1.87-3.07; P<0.0001) and readmission (odds ratio, 1.77; 95% confidence interval, 1.46-2.14; P<0.0001). NHD patients were significantly sicker than those discharged home. In addition, NHD is associated with higher rates of postdischarge complications.

Statistics for the Practicing Spine Surgeon: Supplementary Data Analysis Measurements.

With the rapid rise of clinical spine surgery literature in the last few decades, there is a greater need for practicing spine surgeons to confidently analyze and critique published literature within the field. The conclusions drawn from published studies are often integrated into a physician's clinical decision-making. A strong knowledge in the fundamental statistical measurements used most frequently in spine surgery literature can enhance the ability to properly interpret the meaning of a study's results. However, medical education often lacks the incorporation of clinically relevant statistical analysis. The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of some of the most commonly used statistical measurements in spine surgery, specifically intraclass correlation coefficient, diagnostic testing analyses, Kaplan-Meier curves, hazard ratios, distribution, and variance.