Methods: A retrospective review of medical record data from patients undergoing spine irrigation and debridement (I&D) at the University of Missouri over a 10-year period was performed. Results: For patients undergoing spine I&D, there was a 4% incidence of fungal infection and 0.49% rate of AFB infection. Steroid use was associated with a higher likelihood (odds ratio, 5.62; 95% confidence interval, 1.33–23.75) of positive fungal or AFB cultures. Although not significant, patients undergoing multiple I&D procedures had higher rates of positive fungal cultures during each subsequent I&D. Over a 10-year period, if fungal cultures are obtained for each patient, it would cost our healthcare system $12,151.58. This is compared to an average cost of $177,297.64 per missed fungal infection requiring subsequent treatment. Conclusions Spine fungal infections occur infrequently at a rate of 4%. Physicians should strongly consider obtaining samples for fungal cultures in patients undergoing spine I&D, especially those using steroids and those undergoing multiple I&Ds. Our AFB culture rates mirror the false positive rates seen in previous orthopedic literature. It is unlikely to be cost effective to send for AFB cultures in areas with low endemic rates of AFB.

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: Patients >18 years old who underwent primary one- or two-level TLIFs at our institution were identified and propensitymatched in a 3:1 fashion (unilateral:bilateral). Patient demographics, surgical characteristics, and radiographic outcomes, including vertebral endplate obliquity, segmental lordosis, subsidence, and fusion status, were compared between groups. Results: Of the 184 patients included, 46 received bilateral cages. Bilateral cage placement was associated with greater subsidence (1.06±1.25 mm vs. 0.59±1.16 mm, p=0.028) and enhanced restoration of segmental lordosis (5.74°±14.1° vs. −1.57°±10.9°, p=0.002) at the 1-year postoperative point, while unilateral cage placement was associated with an increased correction of endplate obliquity (−2.02°±4.42° vs. 0.24°±2.81°, p<0.001). Bilateral cage placement was significantly associated with radiographic fusion on bivariate analysis (89.1% vs. 70.3%, p=0.018) and significantly predicted radiographic fusion on multivariable regression analysis (estimate, 1.35; odds ratio, 3.87; 95% confidence interval, 1.51–12.05; p=0.010). Conclusions Bilateral interbody cage placement in TLIF procedures was associated with restoration of lumbar lordosis and increased fusion rates. However, endplate obliquity correction was significantly greater for patients who received a unilateral cage.

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.

Methods: Patients undergoing elective PCDF at our urban academic medical center from 2014 to 2020 were included. Patients were categorized by mFI scores (0–0.08, 0.09–0.17, 0.18–0.26, and ≥0.27). Univariate statistics compared demographics, comorbidities, and clinical/surgical outcomes. Multiple linear regression analysis evaluated the magnitude of improvement in PROMs at 1 year. Results: A total of 165 patients were included and grouped by mFI scores: 0 (n=36), 0.09 (n=62), 0.18 (n=42), and ≥0.27 (n=30). The severe frailty group (mFI ≥0.27) was significantly more likely to be diabetic (p <0.001) and have a greater Elixhauser comorbidity index (p =0.001). They also had worse baseline Physical Component Score-12 (PCS-12) (p =0.011) and modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association (mJOA) (p =0.012) scores and worse 1-year postoperative PCS-12 (p =0.008) and mJOA (p =0.001) scores. On regression analysis, an mFI score of 0.18 was an independent predictor of greater improvement in ΔVisual Analog Scale neck (β =−2.26, p =0.022) and ΔVAS arm (β =−1.76, p =0.042). Regardless of frailty status, patients had similar 90-day readmission rates (p =0.752), complication rates (p =0.223), and revision rates (p =0.814), but patients with severe frailty were more likely to have longer hospital length of stay (p =0.006) and require non-home discharge (p <0.001). Conclusions Similar improvements across most PROMs can be expected irrespective of the frailty status of patients undergoing PCDF. Complication rates, 90-day readmission rates, and revision rates are not significantly different when stratified by frailty status. However, patients with severe frailty are more likely to have longer hospital stays and require non-home discharge.

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.