Filter

Refine by Publication

Refine by Date

—

Refine by Access

By Author

  • Print
  • Save

Browse

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 90 items for

  • Refine by Access: all x
  • By Author: Asher, Anthony L. x
Clear All
Free access

Three-level ACDF versus 3-level laminectomy and fusion: are there differences in outcomes? An analysis of the Quality Outcomes Database cervical spondylotic myelopathy cohort

Vardhaan S. Ambati, Mohamed Macki, Andrew K. Chan, Giorgos D. Michalopoulos, Vivian P. Le, Alysha B. Jamieson, Dean Chou, Christopher I. Shaffrey, Oren N. Gottfried, Erica F. Bisson, Anthony L. Asher, Domagoj Coric, Eric A. Potts, Kevin T. Foley, Michael Y. Wang, Kai-Ming Fu, Michael S. Virk, John J. Knightly, Scott Meyer, Paul Park, Cheerag Upadhyaya, Mark E. Shaffrey, Avery L. Buchholz, Luis M. Tumialán, Jay D. Turner, Brandon A. Sherrod, Regis W. Haid Jr., Mohamad Bydon, and Praveen V. Mummaneni

OBJECTIVE

The authors sought to compare 3-level anterior with posterior fusion surgical procedures for the treatment of multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM).

METHODS

The authors analyzed prospective data from the 14 highest enrolling sites of the Quality Outcomes Database CSM module. They compared 3-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and posterior cervical laminectomy and fusion (PCF) surgical procedures, excluding surgical procedures crossing the cervicothoracic junction. Rates of reaching the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were compared at 24 months postoperatively. Multivariable analyses adjusted for potential confounders elucidated in univariable analysis.

RESULTS

Overall, 199 patients met the inclusion criteria: 123 ACDF (61.8%) and 76 PCF (38.2%) patients. The 24-month follow-up rates were similar (ACDF 90.2% vs PCF 92.1%, p = 0.67). Preoperatively, ACDF patients were younger (60.8 ± 10.2 vs 65.0 ± 10.3 years, p < 0.01), and greater proportions were privately insured (56.1% vs 36.8%, p = 0.02), actively employed (39.8% vs 22.8%, p = 0.04), and independently ambulatory (14.6% vs 31.6%, p < 0.01). Otherwise, the cohorts had equivalent baseline modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association (mJOA), Neck Disability Index (NDI), numeric rating scale (NRS)–arm pain, NRS–neck pain, and EQ-5D scores (p > 0.05). ACDF patients had reduced hospitalization length (1.6 vs 3.9 days, p < 0.01) and a greater proportion had nonroutine discharge (7.3% vs 22.8%, p < 0.01), but they had a higher rate of postoperative dysphagia (13.5% vs 3.5%, p = 0.049). Compared with baseline values, both groups demonstrated improvements in all outcomes at 24 months (p < 0.05). In multivariable analyses, after controlling for age, insurance payor, employment status, ambulation status, and other potential clinically relevant confounders, ACDF was associated with a greater proportion of patients with maximum satisfaction on the North American Spine Society Patient Satisfaction Index (NASS) (NASS score of 1) at 24 months (69.4% vs 53.7%, OR 2.44, 95% CI 1.17–5.09, adjusted p = 0.02). Otherwise, the cohorts shared similar 24-month outcomes in terms of reaching the MCID for mJOA, NDI, NRS–arm pain, NRS–neck pain, and EQ-5D score (adjusted p > 0.05). There were no differences in the 3-month readmission (ACDF 4.1% vs PCF 3.9%, p = 0.97) and 24-month reoperation (ACDF 13.5% vs PCF 18.6%, p = 0.36) rates.

CONCLUSIONS

In a cohort limited to 3-level fusion surgical procedures, ACDF was associated with reduced blood loss, shorter hospitalization length, and higher routine home discharge rates; however, PCF resulted in lower rates of postoperative dysphagia. The procedures yielded comparably significant improvements in functional status (mJOA score), neck and arm pain, neck pain–related disability, and quality of life at 3, 12, and 24 months. ACDF patients had significantly higher odds of maximum satisfaction (NASS score 1). Given comparable outcomes, patients should be counseled on each approach’s complication profile to aid in surgical decision-making.

In Neurosurgical Focus Volume 55 (2023): Issue 3 (Sep 2023): Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy

Restricted access

Cervical laminoplasty versus laminectomy and posterior cervical fusion for cervical myelopathy: propensity-matched analysis of 24-month outcomes from the Quality Outcomes Database

Presented at the 2023 AANS/CNS Joint Section on Disorders of the Spine and Peripheral Nerves

Eunice Yang, Praveen V. Mummaneni, Dean Chou, Mohamad Bydon, Erica F. Bisson, Christopher I. Shaffrey, Oren N. Gottfried, Anthony L. Asher, Domagoj Coric, Eric A. Potts, Kevin T. Foley, Michael Y. Wang, Kai-Ming Fu, Michael S. Virk, John J. Knightly, Scott Meyer, Paul Park, Cheerag D. Upadhyaya, Mark E. Shaffrey, Avery L. Buchholz, Luis M. Tumialán, Jay D. Turner, Giorgos D. Michalopoulos, Brandon A. Sherrod, Nitin Agarwal, Regis W. Haid Jr., and Andrew K. Chan

OBJECTIVE

Compared with laminectomy with posterior cervical fusion (PCF), cervical laminoplasty (CL) may result in different outcomes for those operated on for cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM). The aim of this study was to compare 24-month patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for laminoplasty versus PCF by using the Quality Outcomes Database (QOD) CSM data set.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study using an augmented data set from the prospectively collected QOD Registry Cervical Module. Patients undergoing laminoplasty or PCF for CSM were included. Using the nearest-neighbor method, the authors performed 1:1 propensity matching based on age, operated levels, and baseline modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association (mJOA) and visual analog scale (VAS) neck pain scores. The 24-month PROs, i.e., mJOA, Neck Disability Index (NDI), VAS neck pain, VAS arm pain, EQ-5D, EQ-VAS, and North American Spine Society (NASS) satisfaction scores, were compared. Only cases in the subaxial cervical region were included; those that crossed the cervicothoracic junction were excluded.

RESULTS

From the 1141 patients included in the QOD CSM data set who underwent anterior or posterior surgery for cervical myelopathy, 946 (82.9%) had 24 months of follow-up. Of these, 43 patients who underwent laminoplasty and 191 who underwent PCF met the inclusion criteria. After matching, the groups were similar for baseline characteristics, including operative levels (CL group: 4.0 ± 0.9 vs PCF group: 4.2 ± 1.1, p = 0.337) and baseline PROs (p > 0.05), except for a higher percentage involved in activities outside the home in the CL group (95.3% vs 81.4%, p = 0.044). The 24-month follow-up for the matched cohorts was similar (CL group: 88.4% vs PCF group: 83.7%, p = 0.534). Patients undergoing laminoplasty had significantly lower estimated blood loss (99.3 ± 91.7 mL vs 186.7 ± 142.7 mL, p = 0.003), decreased length of stay (3.0 ± 1.6 days vs 4.5 ± 3.3 days, p = 0.012), and a higher rate of routine discharge (88.4% vs 62.8%, p = 0.006). The CL cohort also demonstrated a higher rate of return to activities (47.2% vs 21.2%, p = 0.023) after 3 months. Laminoplasty was associated with a larger improvement in 24-month NDI score (−19.6 ± 18.9 vs −9.1 ± 21.9, p = 0.031). Otherwise, there were no 3- or 24-month differences in mJOA, mean NDI, VAS neck pain, VAS arm pain, EQ-5D, EQ-VAS, and distribution of NASS satisfaction scores (p > 0.05) between the cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with PCF, laminoplasty was associated with decreased blood loss, decreased length of hospitalization, and higher rates of home discharge. At 3 months, laminoplasty was associated with a higher rate of return to baseline activities. At 24 months, laminoplasty was associated with greater improvements in neck disability. Otherwise, laminoplasty and PCF shared similar outcomes for functional status, pain, quality of life, and satisfaction. Laminoplasty and PCF achieved similar neck pain scores, suggesting that moderate preoperative neck pain may not necessarily be a contraindication for laminoplasty.

In Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine Publish Before Print

Free access

Developing nonlinear k-nearest neighbors classification algorithms to identify patients at high risk of increased length of hospital stay following spine surgery

Shane Shahrestani, Andrew K. Chan, Erica F. Bisson, Mohamad Bydon, Steven D. Glassman, Kevin T. Foley, Christopher I. Shaffrey, Eric A. Potts, Mark E. Shaffrey, Domagoj Coric, John J. Knightly, Paul Park, Michael Y. Wang, Kai-Ming Fu, Jonathan R. Slotkin, Anthony L. Asher, Michael S. Virk, Giorgos D. Michalopoulos, Jian Guan, Regis W. Haid, Nitin Agarwal, Dean Chou, and Praveen V. Mummaneni

OBJECTIVE

Spondylolisthesis is a common operative disease in the United States, but robust predictive models for patient outcomes remain limited. The development of models that accurately predict postoperative outcomes would be useful to help identify patients at risk of complicated postoperative courses and determine appropriate healthcare and resource utilization for patients. As such, the purpose of this study was to develop k-nearest neighbors (KNN) classification algorithms to identify patients at increased risk for extended hospital length of stay (LOS) following neurosurgical intervention for spondylolisthesis.

METHODS

The Quality Outcomes Database (QOD) spondylolisthesis data set was queried for patients receiving either decompression alone or decompression plus fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis. Preoperative and perioperative variables were queried, and Mann-Whitney U-tests were performed to identify which variables would be included in the machine learning models. Two KNN models were implemented (k = 25) with a standard training set of 60%, validation set of 20%, and testing set of 20%, one with arthrodesis status (model 1) and the other without (model 2). Feature scaling was implemented during the preprocessing stage to standardize the independent features.

RESULTS

Of 608 enrolled patients, 544 met prespecified inclusion criteria. The mean age of all patients was 61.9 ± 12.1 years (± SD), and 309 (56.8%) patients were female. The model 1 KNN had an overall accuracy of 98.1%, sensitivity of 100%, specificity of 84.6%, positive predictive value (PPV) of 97.9%, and negative predictive value (NPV) of 100%. Additionally, a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was plotted for model 1, showing an overall area under the curve (AUC) of 0.998. Model 2 had an overall accuracy of 99.1%, sensitivity of 100%, specificity of 92.3%, PPV of 99.0%, and NPV of 100%, with the same ROC AUC of 0.998.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, these findings demonstrate that nonlinear KNN machine learning models have incredibly high predictive value for LOS. Important predictor variables include diabetes, osteoporosis, socioeconomic quartile, duration of surgery, estimated blood loss during surgery, patient educational status, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, BMI, insurance status, smoking status, sex, and age. These models may be considered for external validation by spine surgeons to aid in patient selection and management, resource utilization, and preoperative surgical planning.

In Neurosurgical Focus Volume 54 (2023): Issue 6 (Jun 2023): Machine Learning in Neurosurgery

Free access

Which supervised machine learning algorithm can best predict achievement of minimum clinically important difference in neck pain after surgery in patients with cervical myelopathy? A QOD study

Christine Park, Praveen V. Mummaneni, Oren N. Gottfried, Christopher I. Shaffrey, Anthony J. Tang, Erica F. Bisson, Anthony L. Asher, Domagoj Coric, Eric A. Potts, Kevin T. Foley, Michael Y. Wang, Kai-Ming Fu, Michael S. Virk, John J. Knightly, Scott Meyer, Paul Park, Cheerag Upadhyaya, Mark E. Shaffrey, Avery L. Buchholz, Luis M. Tumialán, Jay D. Turner, Brandon A. Sherrod, Nitin Agarwal, Dean Chou, Regis W. Haid Jr., Mohamad Bydon, and Andrew K. Chan

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of different supervised machine learning algorithms to predict achievement of minimum clinically important difference (MCID) in neck pain after surgery in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM).

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of the prospective Quality Outcomes Database CSM cohort. The data set was divided into an 80% training and a 20% test set. Various supervised learning algorithms (including logistic regression, support vector machine, decision tree, random forest, extra trees, gaussian naïve Bayes, k–nearest neighbors, multilayer perceptron, and extreme gradient boosted trees) were evaluated on their performance to predict achievement of MCID in neck pain at 3 and 24 months after surgery, given a set of predicting baseline features. Model performance was assessed with accuracy, F1 score, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, precision, recall/sensitivity, and specificity.

RESULTS

In total, 535 patients (46.9%) achieved MCID for neck pain at 3 months and 569 patients (49.9%) achieved it at 24 months. In each follow-up cohort, 501 patients (93.6%) were satisfied at 3 months after surgery and 569 patients (100%) were satisfied at 24 months after surgery. Of the supervised machine learning algorithms tested, logistic regression demonstrated the best accuracy (3 months: 0.76 ± 0.031, 24 months: 0.773 ± 0.044), followed by F1 score (3 months: 0.759 ± 0.019, 24 months: 0.777 ± 0.039) and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (3 months: 0.762 ± 0.027, 24 months: 0.773 ± 0.043) at predicting achievement of MCID for neck pain at both follow-up time points, with fair performance. The best precision was also demonstrated by logistic regression at 3 (0.724 ± 0.058) and 24 (0.780 ± 0.097) months. The best recall/sensitivity was demonstrated by multilayer perceptron at 3 months (0.841 ± 0.094) and by extra trees at 24 months (0.817 ± 0.115). Highest specificity was shown by support vector machine at 3 months (0.952 ± 0.013) and by logistic regression at 24 months (0.747 ± 0.18).

CONCLUSIONS

Appropriate selection of models for studies should be based on the strengths of each model and the aims of the studies. For maximally predicting true achievement of MCID in neck pain, of all the predictions in this balanced data set the appropriate metric for the authors’ study was precision. For both short- and long-term follow-ups, logistic regression demonstrated the highest precision of all models tested. Logistic regression performed consistently the best of all models tested and remains a powerful model for clinical classification tasks.

In Neurosurgical Focus Volume 54 (2023): Issue 6 (Jun 2023): Machine Learning in Neurosurgery

Restricted access

Research using the Quality Outcomes Database: accomplishments and future steps toward higher-quality real-world evidence

Anthony L. Asher, Regis W. Haid, Ann R. Stroink, Giorgos D. Michalopoulos, A. Yohan Alexander, Daniel Zeitouni, Andrew K. Chan, Michael S. Virk, Steven D. Glassman, Kevin T. Foley, Jonathan R. Slotkin, Eric A. Potts, Mark E. Shaffrey, Christopher I. Shaffrey, Paul Park, Cheerag Upadhyaya, Domagoj Coric, Luis M. Tumialán, Dean Chou, Kai-Ming G. Fu, John J. Knightly, Katie O. Orrico, Michael Y. Wang, Erica F. Bisson, Praveen V. Mummaneni, and Mohamad Bydon

OBJECTIVE

The Quality Outcomes Database (QOD) was established in 2012 by the NeuroPoint Alliance, a nonprofit organization supported by the American Association of Neurological Surgeons. Currently, the QOD has launched six different modules to cover a broad spectrum of neurosurgical practice—namely lumbar spine surgery, cervical spine surgery, brain tumor, stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), functional neurosurgery for Parkinson’s disease, and cerebrovascular surgery. This investigation aims to summarize research efforts and evidence yielded through QOD research endeavors.

METHODS

The authors identified all publications from January 1, 2012, to February 18, 2023, that were produced by using data collected prospectively in a QOD module without a prespecified research purpose in the context of quality surveillance and improvement. Citations were compiled and presented along with comprehensive documentation of the main study objective and take-home message.

RESULTS

A total of 94 studies have been produced through QOD efforts during the past decade. QOD-derived literature has been predominantly dedicated to spinal surgical outcomes, with 59 and 22 studies focusing on lumbar and cervical spine surgery, respectively, and 6 studies focusing on both. More specifically, the QOD Study Group—a research collaborative between 16 high-enrolling sites—has yielded 24 studies on lumbar grade 1 spondylolisthesis and 13 studies on cervical spondylotic myelopathy, using two focused data sets with high data accuracy and long-term follow-up. The more recent neuro-oncological QOD efforts, i.e., the Tumor QOD and the SRS Quality Registry, have contributed 5 studies, providing insights into the real-world neuro-oncological practice and the role of patient-reported outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Prospective quality registries are an important resource for observational research, yielding clinical evidence to guide decision-making across neurosurgical subspecialties. Future directions of the QOD efforts include the development of research efforts within the neuro-oncological registries and the American Spine Registry—which has now replaced the inactive spinal modules of the QOD—and the focused research on high-grade lumbar spondylolisthesis and cervical radiculopathy.

In Journal of Neurosurgery Publish Before Print

Restricted access

Surgeon input can increase the value of registry data: early experience from the American Spine Registry

Steven D. Glassman, Leah Y. Carreon, Anthony L. Asher, Ayushmita De, Kyle Mullen, Kimberly R. Porter, Christopher I. Shaffrey, John J. Knightly, Kevin T. Foley, Todd J. Albert, Darrel S. Brodke, David W. Polly Jr., and Mohamad Bydon

OBJECTIVE

Clear diagnostic delineation is necessary for the development of a strong evidence base in lumbar spinal surgery. Experience with existing national databases suggests that International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Edition (ICD-10) coding is insufficient to support that need. The purpose of this study was to assess agreement between surgeon-specified diagnostic indication and hospital-reported ICD-10 codes for lumbar spine surgery.

METHODS

Data collection for the American Spine Registry (ASR) includes an option to denote the surgeon’s specific diagnostic indication for each procedure. For cases treated between January 2020 and March 2022, surgeon-delineated diagnosis was compared with the ICD-10 diagnosis generated by standard ASR electronic medical record data extraction. For decompression-only cases, the primary analysis focused on the etiology of neural compression as determined by the surgeon versus that determined on the basis of the related ICD-10 codes extracted from the ASR database. For lumbar fusion cases, the primary analysis compared structural pathology, which may have required fusion, as determined by the surgeon versus that determined on the basis of the extracted ICD-10 codes. This allowed for identification of agreement between surgeon delineation and extracted ICD-10 codes.

RESULTS

In 5926 decompression-only cases, agreement between the surgeon and ASR ICD-10 codes was 89% for spinal stenosis and 78% for lumbar disc herniation and/or radiculopathy. Both the surgeon and database indicated no structural pathology (i.e., none) suggesting the need for fusion in 88% of cases. In 5663 lumbar fusion cases, agreement was 76% for spondylolisthesis but poor for other diagnostic indications.

CONCLUSIONS

Agreement between surgeon-specified diagnostic indication and hospital-reported ICD-10 codes was best for patients who underwent decompression only. In the fusion cases, agreement with ICD-10 codes was best in the spondylolisthesis group (76%). In cases other than spondylolisthesis, agreement was poor due to multiple diagnoses or lack of an ICD-10 code that reflected the pathology. This study suggested that standard ICD-10 codes may be inadequate to clearly define the indications for decompression or fusion in patients with lumbar degenerative disease.

In Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine Volume 39: Issue 3 (Sep 2023)

Restricted access

Representativeness of the American Spine Registry: a comparison of patient characteristics with the National Inpatient Sample

Mohamad Bydon, Zeeshan M. Sardar, Giorgos D. Michalopoulos, Sally El Sammak, Andrew K. Chan, Leah Y. Carreon, Elizabeth Norheim, Paul Park, John K. Ratliff, Luis Tumialán, Andrew J. Pugely, Michael P. Steinmetz, Wellington Hsu, John J. Knightly, Diane M. Ziegenhorn, Patrick C. Donnelly, Kyle J. Mullen, Stefan Rykowsky, Ayushmita De, Eric A. Potts, Domagoj Coric, Michael Y. Wang, Sheeraz Qureshi, Rajiv K. Sethi, Kai-Ming Fu, Alpesh A. Patel, S. Tim Yoon, Darrel Brodke, Ann R. Stroink, Erica F. Bisson, Regis W. Haid, Anthony L. Asher, Doug Burton, Praveen V. Mummaneni, and Steven D. Glassman

OBJECTIVE

The American Spine Registry (ASR) is a collaborative effort between the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons and the American Association of Neurological Surgeons. The goal of this study was to evaluate how representative the ASR is of the national practice with spinal procedures, as recorded in the National Inpatient Sample (NIS).

METHODS

The authors queried the NIS and the ASR for cervical and lumbar arthrodesis cases performed during 2017–2019. International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision and Current Procedural Terminology codes were used to identify patients undergoing cervical and lumbar procedures. The two groups were compared for the overall proportion of cervical and lumbar procedures, age distribution, sex, surgical approach features, race, and hospital volume. Outcomes available in the ASR, such as patient-reported outcomes and reoperations, were not analyzed due to nonavailability in the NIS. The representativeness of the ASR compared to the NIS was assessed via Cohen’s d effect sizes, and absolute standardized mean differences (SMDs) of < 0.2 were considered trivial, whereas > 0.5 were considered moderately large.

RESULTS

A total of 24,800 arthrodesis procedures were identified in the ASR for the period between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2019. During the same time period, 1,305,360 cases were recorded in the NIS. Cervical fusions comprised 35.9% of the ASR cohort (8911 cases) and 36.0% of the NIS cohort (469,287 cases). The two databases presented trivial differences in terms of patient age and sex for all years of interest across both cervical and lumbar arthrodeses (SMD < 0.2). Trivial differences were also noted in the distribution of open versus percutaneous procedures of the cervical and lumbar spine (SMD < 0.2). Among lumbar cases, anterior approaches were more common in the ASR than in the NIS (32.1% vs 22.3%, SMD = 0.22), but the discrepancy among cervical cases in the two databases was trivial (SMD = 0.03). Small differences were illustrated in terms of race, with SMDs < 0.5, and a more significant discrepancy was identified in the geographic distribution of participating sites (SMDs of 0.7 and 0.74 for cervical and lumbar cases, respectively). For both of these measures, SMDs in 2019 were smaller than those in 2018 and 2017.

CONCLUSIONS

The ASR and NIS databases presented a very high similarity in proportions of cervical and lumbar spine surgeries, as well as similar distributions of age and sex, and distribution of open versus endoscopic approach. Slight discrepancies in anterior versus posterior approach among lumbar cases and patient race, and more significant discrepancies in geographic representation were also identified, yet decreasing trends in differences suggested the improving representativeness of the ASR over the course of time and its progressive growth. These conclusions are important to underline the external validity of quality investigations and research conclusions to be drawn from analyses in which the ASR is used.

In Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine Volume 39: Issue 2 (Aug 2023)

Restricted access

Do comorbid self-reported depression and anxiety influence outcomes following surgery for cervical spondylotic myelopathy?

Andrew K. Chan, Christopher I. Shaffrey, Christine Park, Oren N. Gottfried, Khoi D. Than, Erica F. Bisson, Mohamad Bydon, Anthony L. Asher, Domagoj Coric, Eric A. Potts, Kevin T. Foley, Michael Y. Wang, Kai-Ming Fu, Michael S. Virk, John J. Knightly, Scott Meyer, Paul Park, Cheerag D. Upadhyaya, Mark E. Shaffrey, Avery L. Buchholz, Luis M. Tumialán, Jay D. Turner, Giorgos D. Michalopoulos, Brandon A. Sherrod, Nitin Agarwal, Dean Chou, Regis W. Haid Jr., and Praveen V. Mummaneni

OBJECTIVE

Depression and anxiety are associated with inferior outcomes following spine surgery. In this study, the authors examined whether patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) who have both self-reported depression (SRD) and self-reported anxiety (SRA) have worse postoperative patient-reported outcomes (PROs) compared with patients who have only one or none of these comorbidities.

METHODS

This study is a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from the Quality Outcomes Database CSM cohort. Comparisons were made among patients who reported the following: 1) either SRD or SRA, 2) both SRD and SRA, or 3) neither comorbidity at baseline. PROs at 3, 12, and 24 months (scores for the visual analog scale [VAS] for neck pain and arm pain, Neck Disability Index [NDI], modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association [mJOA] scale, EQ-5D, EuroQol VAS [EQ-VAS], and North American Spine Society [NASS] patient satisfaction index) and achievement of respective PRO minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) were compared.

RESULTS

Of the 1141 included patients, 199 (17.4%) had either SRD or SRA alone, 132 (11.6%) had both SRD and SRA, and 810 (71.0%) had neither. Preoperatively, patients with either SRD or SRA alone had worse scores for VAS neck pain (5.6 ± 3.1 vs 5.1 ± 3.3, p = 0.03), NDI (41.0 ± 19.3 vs 36.8 ± 20.8, p = 0.007), EQ-VAS (57.0 ± 21.0 vs 60.7 ± 21.7, p = 0.03), and EQ-5D (0.53 ± 0.23 vs 0.58 ± 0.21, p = 0.008) than patients without such disorders. Postoperatively, in multivariable adjusted analyses, baseline SRD or SRA alone was associated with inferior improvement in the VAS neck pain score and a lower rate of achieving the MCID for VAS neck pain score at 3 and 12 months, but not at 24 months. At 24 months, patients with SRD or SRA alone experienced less change in EQ-5D scores and were less likely to meet the MCID for EQ-5D than patients without SRD or SRA. Furthermore, patient self-reporting of both psychological comorbidities did not impact PROs at all measured time points compared with self-reporting of only one psychological comorbidity alone. Each cohort (SRD or SRA alone, both SRD and SRA, and neither SRD nor SRA) experienced significant improvements in mean PROs at all measured time points compared with baseline (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Approximately 12% of patients who underwent surgery for CSM presented with both SRD and SRA, and 29% presented with at least one symptom. The presence of either SRD or SRA was independently associated with inferior scores for 3- and 12-month neck pain following surgery, but this difference was not significant at 24 months. However, at long-term follow-up, patients with SRD or SRA experienced lower quality of life than patients without SRD or SRA. The comorbid presence of both depression and anxiety was not associated with worse patient outcomes than either diagnosis alone.

In Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine Volume 39: Issue 1 (Jul 2023)

Restricted access

Characteristics of patients who return to work after undergoing surgery for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a Quality Outcomes Database study

Stephen M. Bergin, Giorgos D. Michalopoulos, Christopher I. Shaffrey, Oren N. Gottfried, Eli Johnson, Erica F. Bisson, Michael Y. Wang, John J. Knightly, Michael S. Virk, Luis M. Tumialán, Jay D. Turner, Cheerag D. Upadhyaya, Mark E. Shaffrey, Paul Park, Kevin T. Foley, Domagoj Coric, Jonathan R. Slotkin, Eric A. Potts, Dean Chou, Kai-Ming G. Fu, Regis W. Haid Jr., Anthony L. Asher, Mohamad Bydon, Praveen V. Mummaneni, and Khoi D. Than

OBJECTIVE

Return to work (RTW) is an important surgical outcome for patients who are employed, yet a significant number of patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) who are employed undergo cervical spine surgery and fail to RTW. In this study, the authors investigated factors associated with failure to RTW in the CSM population who underwent cervical spine surgery and who were considered to have a good surgical outcome yet failed to RTW.

METHODS

This study retrospectively analyzed prospectively collected data from the cervical myelopathy module of a national spine registry, the Quality Outcomes Database. The CSM data set of the Quality Outcomes Database was queried for patients who were employed at the time of surgery and planned to RTW postoperatively. Distinct multivariable logistic regression models were fitted with 3-month RTW as an outcome for the overall population to identify risk factors for failure to RTW. Good outcomes were defined as patients who had no adverse events (readmissions or complications), who had achieved 30% improvement in Neck Disability Index score, and who were satisfied (North American Spine Society satisfaction score of 1 or 2) at 3 months postsurgery.

RESULTS

Of the 409 patients who underwent surgery, 80% (n = 327) did RTW at 3 months after surgery. At 3 months, 56.9% of patients met the criteria for a good surgical outcome, and patients with a good outcome were more likely to RTW (88.1% vs 69.2%, p < 0.01). Of patients with a good outcome, 11.9% failed to RTW at 3 months. Risk factors for failing to RTW despite a good outcome included preoperative short-term disability or leave status (OR 3.03 [95% CI 1.66–7.90], p = 0.02); a higher baseline Neck Disability Index score (OR 1.41 [95% CI 1.09–1.84], p < 0.01); and higher neck pain score at 3 months postoperatively (OR 0.81 [95% CI 0.66–0.99], p = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

Most patients with CSM who undergo spine surgery reenter the workforce within 3 months from surgery, with RTW rates being higher among patients who experience good outcomes. Among patients with good outcomes who were employed, failure to RTW was associated with being on preoperative short-term disability or leave status prior to surgery as well as higher neck pain scores at baseline and at 3 months postoperatively.

In Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine Volume 38: Issue 5 (May 2023)

Restricted access

How closely are outcome questionnaires correlated to patient satisfaction after cervical spine surgery for myelopathy?

Mark M. Zaki, Rushikesh S. Joshi, Sufyan Ibrahim, Giorgos D. Michalopoulos, Joseph R. Linzey, Yamaan S. Saadeh, Cheerag Upadhyaya, Domagoj Coric, Eric A. Potts, Erica F. Bisson, Jay D. Turner, John J. Knightly, Kai-Ming Fu, Kevin T. Foley, Luis Tumialan, Mark E. Shaffrey, Mohamad Bydon, Praveen V. Mummaneni, Dean Chou, Andrew K. Chan, Scott Meyer, Anthony L. Asher, Christopher I. Shaffrey, Oren N. Gottfried, Khoi D. Than, Michael Wang, Regis Haid Jr., Jonathan R. Slotkin, Steven D. Glassman, and Paul Park

OBJECTIVE

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) have become the standard means to measure surgical outcomes. Insurers and policy makers are also increasingly utilizing PROs to assess the value of care and measure different aspects of a patient’s condition. For cervical myelopathy, it is currently unclear which outcome measure best reflects patient satisfaction. In this investigation, the authors evaluated patients treated for cervical myelopathy to determine which outcome questionnaires best correlate with patient satisfaction.

METHODS

The Quality Outcomes Database (QOD), a prospectively collected multi-institutional database, was used to retrospectively analyze patients undergoing surgery for cervical myelopathy. The North American Spine Society (NASS) satisfaction index, Neck Disability Index (NDI), numeric rating scales for neck pain (NP-NRS) and arm pain (AP-NRS), EQ-5D, and modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association (mJOA) scale were evaluated.

RESULTS

The analysis included 1141 patients diagnosed with myelopathy, of whom 1099 had an NASS satisfaction index recorded at any of the follow-up time points. Concomitant radiculopathy was an indication for surgery in 368 (33.5%) patients, and severe neck pain (NP-NRS ≥ 7) was present in 471 (42.8%) patients. At the 3-month follow-up, NASS patient satisfaction index scores were positively correlated with scores for the NP-NRS (r = 0.30), AP-NRS (r = 0.32), and NDI (r = 0.36) and negatively correlated with EQ-5D (r = −0.38) and mJOA (r = −0.29) scores (all p < 0.001). At the 12-month follow-up, scores for the NASS index were positively correlated with scores for the NP-NRS (r = 0.44), AP-NRS (r = 0.38), and NDI (r = 0.46) and negatively correlated with scores for the EQ-5D (r = −0.40) and mJOA (r = −0.36) (all p < 0.001). At the 24-month follow-up, NASS index scores were positively correlated with NP-NRS (r = 0.49), AP-NRS (r = 0.36), and NDI (r = 0.49) scores and negatively correlated with EQ-5D (r = −0.44) and mJOA (r = −0.38) scores (all p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Neck pain was highly prevalent in patients with myelopathy. Notably, improvement in neck pain–associated disability rather than improvement in myelopathy was the most prominent PRO factor for patients. This finding may reflect greater patient concern for active pain symptoms than for neurological symptoms caused by myelopathy. As commercial payers begin to examine novel remuneration strategies for surgical interventions, thoughtful analysis of PRO measurements will have increasing relevance.

In Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine Volume 38: Issue 5 (May 2023)