Methods: Patients with 1-year postoperative dynamic cervical spine radiographs following ACDF were grouped into serotonin reuptake inhibitor prescriptions (SSRI, serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor [SNRI], or tricyclic antidepressant [TCA]) and no prescription (atypical antidepressant or no antidepressant). Pseudarthrosis was defined as ≥1 mm interspinous process motion on dynamic radiographs. Logistic regression models were controlled for confounding to analyze pseudarthrosis rates. Alpha was set at p - values of <0.05. Results: Of the 523 patients who meet the inclusion criteria, 137 (26.2%) were prescribed an SSRI, SNRI, or TCA. Patients with these prescriptions were more likely to have pseudarthrosis (p =0.008) but not a revision surgery due to pseudarthrosis (p =0.219). Additionally, these patients had worse 1-year postoperative mental component summary (MCS)-12 (p =0.015) and Neck Disability Index (NDI) (p =0.006). The multivariate logistic regression analysis identified SSRI/SNRI/TCA use (odds ratio [OR], 1.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11–2.99; p =0.018) and construct length (OR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.50–2.44; p <0.001) as pseudarthrosis predictors. A SSRI/SNRI/TCA prescription was a revision surgery predictor due to adjacent segment disease on univariate analysis (OR, 2.51; p =0.035) but not on multivariate logistic regression analysis (OR, 2.24; p =0.10). Conclusions Patients taking serotonin reuptake-inhibiting antidepressants are at increased risk of worse postoperative outcome scores, including NDI and MCS-12, likely due to their underlying depression. This may contribute to their greater likelihood of having adjacent segment surgery. Additionally, preoperative use of serotonin reuptake inhibitors in patients undergoing an ACDF is a predictor of radiographic pseudarthrosis but not pseudarthrosis revision.

Methods: Patients aged ≥18 years who underwent lumbar fusion with a postoperative drain between 2017 and 2020 were included and grouped based on hospital readmission status, last 8-hour drain output (<40 mL cutoff), or drain duration (2 days cutoff). Total output of all drains, total output of the primary drain, drain duration in days, drain output per day, last 8-hour output, penultimate 8-hour output, and last 8-hour delta (last 8-hour output subtracted by penultimate 8-hour output) were collected. Continuous and categorical data were compared between groups. Multivariate logistic regression analysis and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis were performed to determine whether drain variables can predict hospital readmission, postoperative blood transfusions, and postoperative anemia. Alpha was 0.05. Results: Our cohort consisted of 1,166 patients with 111 (9.5%) hospital readmissions. Results of regression analysis did not identify any of the drain variables as independent predictors of hospital readmission, postoperative blood transfusion, or postoperative anemia. ROC analysis demonstrated the drain variables to be poor predictors of hospital readmission, with the highest area under curve of 0.524 (drain duration), corresponding to a sensitivity of 61.3% and specificity of 49.9%. Conclusions Drain output or duration did not affect readmission rates following lumbar spine surgery.

Methods: We assessed baseline neutral upright, standing flexion, seated lateral radiographs, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for patients identified with spondylolisthesis from January 2021 to May 2022 by a single spine surgeon. DS was classified by Meyerding and Clinical and Radiographic Degenerative Spondylolisthesis classifications. A difference of >10° or >8% between views, respectively, was used to characterize angular and translational instability. Analysis of variance and paired chi-square tests were utilized to compare modalities. Results: A total of 136 patients were included. Seated lateral and standing flexion radiographs showed the greatest slip percentage (16.0% and 16.7%), while MRI revealed the lowest (12.2%, p <0.001). Standing flexion and lateral radiographs when seated produced more kyphosis (4.66° and 4.97°, respectively) than neutral upright and MRI (7.19° and 7.20°, p <0.001). Seated lateral performed similarly to standing flexion in detecting all measurement parameters and categorizing DS (all p >0.05). Translational instability was shown to be more prevalent when associated with seated lateral or standing flexion than when combined with neutral upright (31.5% vs. 20.2%, p =0.041; and 28.1% vs. 14.6%, p =0.014, respectively). There were no differences between seated lateral or standing flexion in the detection of instability (all p >0.20). Conclusions Seated lateral radiographs are appropriate alternatives for standing flexion radiographs. Films taken when standing up straight do not offer any more information for DS detection. Rather than standing flexion-extension radiographs, instability can be detected using an MRI, which is often performed preoperatively, paired with a single seated lateral radiograph.

Methods: All patients aged >18 years who underwent primary one- to four-level ACDF at a single institution were retrospectively identified. Propensity matching was performed to compare patients’ PEEK or titanium alloy cages with structural allograft. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to measure the effect of interbody spacer composition on the likelihood of pseudarthrosis development. Results: Of the 502 patients who received structural allograft and had 1-year postoperative dynamic radiographs, 96 patients were propensity matched to 32 patients who received a PEEK cage, and 162 patients were propensity matched to 54 patients who received a titanium alloy cage. Multivariate logistic regression analysis identified that PEEK cage implants (odds ratio [OR], 3.34; p =0.007) predicted pseudarthrosis development compared with structural allograft implantation. Titanium alloy cage (OR, 1.64; p =0.156) implantation was not predictive of pseudarthrosis. One-year postoperative PROMs were not significantly different between patients who received PEEK or titanium alloy cages and those who received structural allograft (all p >0.05). Conclusions Compared with structural allograft, receiving a PEEK cage increased the risk of pseudarthrosis development following ACDF, whereas receiving a titanium alloy cage had no significant effect on pseudarthrosis development. One-year postoperative patient-reported outcomes were similar between patients who received structural allograft, PEEK, and titanium alloy interbody spacers.