Methods: Patients diagnosed with cervical degenerative spondylolisthesis were identified from a hospital’s medical records. Demographic and surgical characteristics were collected through a structured query language search and manual chart review. Radiographic measurements were made on preoperative MRIs for all vertebral levels diagnosed with spondylolisthesis and adjacent undiagnosed levels between C3 and C6. The facet fluid index was calculated by dividing the facet fluid measurement by the width of the facet. Bivariate analysis was conducted to compare facet characteristics based on radiographic spondylolisthesis and spondylolisthesis stability. Results: We included 154 patients, for whom 149 levels were classified as having spondylolisthesis and 206 levels did not. The average facet fluid index was significantly higher in patients with spondylolisthesis (0.26±0.07 vs. 0.23±0.08, p <0.001). In addition, both fluid width and facet width were significantly larger in patients with spondylolisthesis (p <0.001 each). Cervical levels in the fusion construct demonstrated a greater facet fluid index and were more likely to have unstable spondylolisthesis than stable spondylolisthesis (p <0.001 each). Conclusions Facet fluid index is associated with cervical spondylolisthesis and an increased facet size and fluid width are associated with unstable spondylolisthesis. While cervical spondylolisthesis continues to be an inconclusive finding, vertebral levels with spondylolisthesis, especially the unstable ones, were more likely to be included in the fusion procedure than those without spondylolisthesis.

Methods: Patients undergoing lumbar decompression with or without fusion at a single tertiary care center were grouped based on the presence of a durotomy. Multivariate analysis was performed for length of stay (LOS), hospital readmissions, and changes in PROMs. To identify surgical risk factors for durotomy, 3:1 propensity matching was performed using stepwise logistic regression. The sensitivity and specificity of the International Classification of Disease, 10th revision (ICD-10) codes (G96.11 and G97.41) were also assessed. Results: Of the 3,684 consecutive patients who underwent lumbar decompressions, 533 (14.5%) had durotomies, and a complete set of PROMs (preoperative and 1-year postoperative) were available for 737 patients (20.0%). Incidental durotomy was an independent predictor of increased LOS but not hospital readmission or worse PROMs. The durotomy repair method was not associated with hospital readmission or LOS. However, repair with collagen graft and suture predicted reduced improvement in Visual Analog Scale back (β =2.56, p=0.004). Independent risk factors for incidental durotomies included revisions (odds ratio [OR], 1.73; p<0.001), levels decompressed (OR, 1.11; p=0.005), and preoperative diagnosis of spondylolisthesis or thoracolumbar kyphosis. The sensitivity and specificity of ICD-10 codes were 5.4% and 99.9%, respectively, for identifying durotomies. Conclusions The durotomy rate for lumbar decompressions was 14.5%. No differences in outcomes were detected except for increased LOS. Database studies relying on ICD codes should be interpreted with caution due to the limited sensitivity in identifying incidental durotomies.