Foreword

As the Director of Undergraduate Medical Education for the Department of Orthopedic Surgery at the Sidney Kimmel Medical College, I am thrilled to have this opportunity to introduce the inaugural issue of the Bone Bulletin. Through the activities of the DePalma Orthopaedic Society, medical students at SKMC have had an excellent venue to learn about orthopaedic surgery, and our surgeons here at Rothman Orthopaedics have enthusiastically mentored younger students interested in the field of orthopedic surgery. The DePalma leadership has worked hard on many initiatives in recent years: providing forums for orthopaedic faculty to speak about their work, assembling lists of orthopaedic programs where former students have trained, developing interview guides and guidance for rising senior students, and trying to encourage women and underrepresented minorities to become part of our orthopaedic family, just to name a few. Each year I have the pleasure of getting to know all the medical students at SKMC who are interested in a career in orthopedic surgery. I’ve had the opportunity to follow some of those students through residency training and into academic positions in orthopedic surgery. Some have risen to attending leadership positions in academic medical centers and national orthopaedic societies. They are bright, well-educated physicians who are motivated to accomplish great things in the world of orthopaedic surgery. This new journal is a testament to the energy, enthusiasm, and skills of our outstanding medical students at SKMC. I hope you enjoy reading their work as much as I enjoy being an advisor and mentor to them. Alan S. Hilibrand, MD, MBAThe Joseph and Marie Field Professor of Spinal Surgery Vice Chairman of Academic Affairs and Faculty Development Director of Undergraduate Medical Education Sidney Kimmel Medical College/ Rothman Orthopaedic

Why are spine surgery patients lost to follow-up?

Long-term outcome studies are frequently hindered by a decreasing frequency of patient follow-up with the treating surgeon over time. Whether this attrition represents a “loss of faith” in their index surgeon or the realities of a geographically mobile society has never been assessed in a population of patients undergoing spinal surgery. The purpose of this article is to determine the frequency with which patients who have undergone prior surgery and develop new problems attempt to follow-up with their index spine surgeon. The study design was a population survey. All patients seen at two university-based spine centers over a 3-month period were surveyed regarding prior spine surgery. The questionnaire asked details of the previous operation, whether the patient had sought follow-up with their index surgeon, why the patient did not continue treatment with that surgeon, and whether the patient was satisfied with their prior treatment. Sixty-nine patients completed the survey. Prior operations were lumbar (53 patients) and cervical (16). When asked the reason for not seeing their prior surgeon, 10 patients (15%) stated that they (the patient) had moved and 16 (23%) responded that their surgeon no longer practiced in the area. Thirteen (19%) were unhappy with their previous care, 22 (32%) were seeking a second opinion, and 7 (10%) were told they needed more complex surgery. Thirty-seven (54%) discussed their symptoms with their original surgeon before seeking another surgeon. Although 32 patients (46%) had not discussed their new complaints with their index surgeon, only 3 patients (4%) chose not to return to their prior surgeon despite having the opportunity to do so. Forty-nine patients (71%) were satisfied with their prior surgical care, and 42 patients (61%) would undergo the index operation again. Most of the patients seen at the authors' practices after undergoing prior spine surgery elsewhere failed to follow up with their prior spine surgeon for geographical reasons. It appears that the majority of patients who develop new spinal complaints will seek out their treating surgeon when possible. This suggests that patient attrition over long-term follow-up may reflect a geographically mobile population rather than patient dissatisfaction with prior treatment

Clinical Outcomes After Four-Level Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion.

Study Design: Retrospective cohort study. Objectives: Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) demonstrates reliable improvement in neurologic symptoms associated with anterior compression of the cervical spine. There is a paucity of data on outcomes following 4-level ACDFs. The purpose of this study was to evaluate clinical outcomes for patients undergoing 4-level ACDF. Methods: All 4-level ACDFs with at least 1-year clinical follow-up were identified. Clinical outcomes, including fusion rates, neurologic outcomes, and reoperation rates were determined. Results: Retrospective review of our institutional database revealed 25 patients who underwent 4-level ACDF with at least 1-year clinical follow-up. Average age was 57.5 years (range 38.2-75.0 years); 14 (56%) were male, and average body mass index was 30.2 kg/m Conclusions: Review of our institution\u27s experience demonstrated a low rate of revision cervical surgery for any reason of 8% at mean 19 months follow-up, and neurological examinations consistently improved, despite a high rate of radiographic nonunion (31%)

Comparison of transcranial electric motor and somatosensory evoked potential monitoring during cervical spine surgery.

BACKGROUND: There has been little enthusiasm for somatosensory evoked potential monitoring in cervical spine surgery as a result, in part, of the increased risk of motor tract injury at this level, to which somatosensory monitoring may be insensitive. Transcranial electric motor evoked potential monitoring allows assessment of the motor tracts; therefore, we compared transcranial electric motor evoked potential and somatosensory evoked potential monitoring during cervical spine surgery to determine the temporal relationship between the changes in the potentials demonstrated by each type of monitoring and neurological sequelae and to identify patient-related and surgical factors associated with intraoperative neurophysiological changes. METHODS: Somatosensory evoked potential and transcranial electric motor evoked potential data recorded for 427 patients undergoing anterior or posterior cervical spine surgery between January 1999 and March 2001 were analyzed. All patients who showed substantial (at least 60%) or complete unilateral or bilateral amplitude loss, for at least ten minutes, during the transcranial electric motor evoked potential and/or somatosensory evoked potential monitoring were identified. RESULTS: Twelve of the 427 patients demonstrated substantial or complete loss of amplitude of the transcranial electric motor evoked potentials. Ten of those patients had complete reversal of the loss following prompt intraoperative intervention, whereas two awoke with a new motor deficit. Somatosensory evoked potential monitoring failed to identify any change in one of the two patients, and the change in the somatosensory evoked potentials lagged behind the change in the transcranial electric motor evoked potentials by thirty-three minutes in the other. No patient showed loss of amplitude of the somatosensory evoked potentials in the absence of changes in the transcranial electric motor evoked potentials. Transcranial electric motor evoked potential monitoring was 100% sensitive and 100% specific, whereas somatosensory evoked potential monitoring was only 25% sensitive; it was, however, 100% specific. CONCLUSIONS: Transcranial electric motor evoked potential monitoring appears to be superior to conventional somatosensory evoked potential monitoring for identifying evolving motor tract injury during cervical spine surgery. Surgeons should strongly consider using this modality when operating on patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy in general and on those with ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament in particular

Radiculopathy and myelopathy at segments adjacent to the site of a previous anterior cervical arthrodesis.

BACKGROUND: We studied the incidence, prevalence, and radiographic progression of symptomatic adjacent-segment disease, which we defined as the development of new radiculopathy or myelopathy referable to a motion segment adjacent to the site of a previous anterior arthrodesis of the cervical spine. METHODS: A consecutive series of 374 patients who had a total of 409 anterior cervical arthrodeses for the treatment of cervical spondylosis with radiculopathy or myelopathy, or both, were followed for a maximum of twenty-one years after the operation. The annual incidence of symptomatic adjacent-segment disease was defined as the percentage of patients who had been disease-free at the start of a given year of follow-up in whom new disease developed during that year. The prevalence was defined as the percentage of all patients in whom symptomatic adjacent-segment disease developed within a given period of follow-up. The natural history of the disease was predicted with use of a Kaplan-Meier survivorship analysis. The hypothesis that new disease at an adjacent level is more likely to develop following a multilevel arthrodesis than it is following a single-level arthrodesis was tested with logistic regression. RESULTS: Symptomatic adjacent-segment disease occurred at a relatively constant incidence of 2.9 percent per year (range, 0.0 to 4.8 percent per year) during the ten years after the operation. Survivorship analysis predicted that 25.6 percent of the patients (95 percent confidence interval, 20 to 32 percent) who had an anterior cervical arthrodesis would have new disease at an adjacent level within ten years after the operation. There were highly significant differences among the motion segments with regard to the likelihood of symptomatic adjacent-segment disease (p CONCLUSIONS: Symptomatic adjacent-segment disease may affect more than one-fourth of all patients within ten years after an anterior cervical arthrodesis. A single-level arthrodesis involving the fifth or sixth cervical vertebra and preexisting radiographic evidence of degeneration at adjacent levels appear to be the greatest risk factors for new disease. Therefore, we believe that all degenerated segments causing radiculopathy or myelopathy should be included in an anterior cervical arthrodesis. Although our findings suggest that symptomatic adjacent-segment disease is the result of progressive spondylosis, patients should be informed of the substantial possibility that new disease will develop at an adjacent level over the long term

The influence of obesity on the outcome of treatment of lumbar disc herniation: analysis of the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT).

BACKGROUND: Questions remain as to the effect that obesity has on patients managed for symptomatic lumbar disc herniation. The purpose of this study was to determine if obesity affects outcomes following the treatment of symptomatic lumbar disc herniation. METHODS: An as-treated analysis was performed on patients enrolled in the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation. A comparison was made between patients with a body mass index of/m² (nonobese) (n = 854) and those with a body mass index of ≥30 kg/m² (obese) (n = 336). Baseline patient demographic and clinical characteristics were documented. Primary and secondary outcomes were measured at baseline and at regular follow-up time intervals up to four years. The difference in improvement from baseline between operative and nonoperative treatment was determined at each follow-up period for both groups. RESULTS: At the time of the four-year follow-up evaluation, improvements over baseline in primary outcome measures were significantly less for obese patients as compared with nonobese patients in both the operative treatment group (Short Form-36 physical function, 37.3 compared with 47.7 points [p \u3c 0.001], Short Form-36 bodily pain, 44.2 compared with 50.0 points [p = 0.005], and Oswestry Disability Index, -33.7 compared with -40.1 points [p \u3c 0.001]) and the nonoperative treatment group (Short Form-36 physical function, 23.1 compared with 32.0 points [p \u3c 0.001] and Oswestry Disability Index, -21.4 compared with -26.1 points [p \u3c 0.001]). The one exception was that the change from baseline in terms of the Short Form-36 bodily pain score was statistically similar for obese and nonobese patients in the nonoperative treatment group (30.9 compared with 33.4 points [p = 0.39]). At the time of the four-year follow-up evaluation, when compared with nonobese patients who had been managed operatively, obese patients who had been managed operatively had significantly less improvement in the Sciatica Bothersomeness Index and the Low Back Pain Bothersomeness Index, but had no significant difference in patient satisfaction or self-rated improvement. In the present study, 77.5% of obese patients and 86.9% of nonobese patients who had been managed operatively were working a full or part-time job. No significant differences were observed in the secondary outcome measures between obese and nonobese patients who had been managed nonoperatively. The benefit of surgery over nonoperative treatment was not affected by body mass index. CONCLUSIONS: Obese patients realized less clinical benefit from both operative and nonoperative treatment of lumbar disc herniation. Surgery provided similar benefit over nonoperative treatment in obese and nonobese patients

The impact of four common lumbar spine diagnoses upon overall health status

Background Context: The SF-36 health survey has been shown to be a valid instrument when used to measure the self-reported physical and mental health of patients. The impact of lumbar spinal disorders can be assessed as the difference between the SF-36 scale scores and age-and-gender specific population norms. Purpose: To establish the impact upon the self-reported health status of patients with one of four common lumbar spinal diagnoses. Study Design: A cross-sectional, observational assessment of the health status of spine patients. Methods: Data from patients presenting to the participating centers of the National Spine Network with low back pain and/or leg pain, was collected prospectively using the Health Status Questionnaire 2.0. A database search identified patients with either herniated nucleus pulposus with radicular pain (HNP), lumbar spinal stenosis without deformity (SPS), degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS), and painful disc degeneration/spondylosis (DDD). The mean SF-36 scale scores were generated for each of the diagnostic groups. The impact of these diagnoses on health status was determined as the calculated difference from the age-and-gender specific population norms for each of the eight health scale scores. These scores, usually negative in this population, represent how far below normal these patients are. The analysis was stratified according to the age of the patients (\u3c40 yrs, 40-60 yrs, \u3e60 yrs). Analysis of variance and pair-wise comparison with Bonferroni correction were used to assess the significance of differences across diagnosis and age groups. Results: Data from a total of 4,442 patients was available for this study. All four diagnostic groups had large, negative impact scores for the eight general health scales with the greatest impact upon the three scales that best measure physical health. The greatest impact on these physical health scales (physical functioning, role-physical, and bodily pain) was seen in the HNP diagnostic group. The younger age groups (\u3c40 yrs and 40-60 yrs) had the greatest physical impairment when compared to the age-and-gender specific population norms. Analysis of variance showed a significant relationship between diagnosis and SF-36 scores, and between age groups and SF-36 scores. Conclusions: All four lumbar spine disorders have a significant negative impact on all eight of the SF-36 scales. The greatest negative impact was seen in those scales that measure physical health (RP, PF, and BP). The HNP diagnostic group experienced a significantly greater impact upon these three scales. This diagnostic group had the youngest patients, whose baseline physical functional status would be expected to be the most optimal. When we stratified by age in all the diagnostic groups, the greatest negative impact scores for physical health were seen in the \u3c 40 yrs and 40-60 yrs age groups. These patients were also more likely to perceive their health as poor, experience decreased energy, and have more social impairment when compared to their age/gender norms

Effectiveness of Surgery for Lumbar Stenosis and Degenerative Spondylolisthesis in the Octogenarian Population: Analysis of the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT) Data.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to determine whether surgery is an effective option for the treatment of stenosis of the lumbar spine and degenerative spondylolisthesis in the octogenarian population. METHODS: An as-treated analysis of patients with lumbar stenosis and degenerative spondylolisthesis enrolled in the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT) was performed. Patients who were at least eighty years of age (n = 105) were compared with those younger than eighty years (n = 1130). Baseline patient and clinical characteristics were noted, and the difference in improvement from baseline between operative and nonoperative treatment was determined for each group at each follow-up time period up to four years. RESULTS: There were no significant baseline differences in the primary or secondary patient-reported clinical outcome measures between the two patient age groups. Patients at least eighty years of age had higher prevalences of multilevel stenosis, severe stenosis, and asymmetric motor weakness. Patients at least eighty years of age also had higher prevalences of hypertension, heart disease, osteoporosis, and joint problems at baseline, but they had a lower body mass index and lower prevalences of depression and smoking. Fifty-eight of the 105 patients at least eighty years of age and 749 of the 1130 younger patients underwent operative management. There were no differences in the rates of intraoperative or postoperative complications, reoperation, or postoperative mortality between the older and younger groups. Averaged over a four-year follow-up period, operatively treated patients at least eighty years of age had significantly greater improvement in all primary and secondary outcome measures compared with nonoperatively treated patients. The treatment effects in patients at least eighty years of age were similar to those in younger patients for all primary and secondary measures except the SF-36 (Short Form-36) bodily pain domain and the percentage who self-rated their progress as a major improvement, in both of which the treatment effect was significantly smaller. CONCLUSIONS: Operative treatment of lumbar stenosis and degenerative spondylolisthesis offered a significant benefit over nonoperative treatment in patients at least eighty years of age (p \u3c 0.05). There were no significant increases in the complication and mortality rates following surgery in this patient population compared with younger patients (p \u3e 0.05). LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence

Iatrogenic Spinal Cord Injury Resulting From Cervical Spine Surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study of prospectively collected data. OBJECTIVE: To examine the incidence of iatrogenic spinal cord injury following elective cervical spine surgery. METHODS: A retrospective multicenter case series study involving 21 high-volume surgical centers from the AOSpine North America Clinical Research Network was conducted. Medical records for 17 625 patients who received cervical spine surgery (levels from C2 to C7) between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2011, were reviewed to identify occurrence of iatrogenic spinal cord injury. RESULTS: In total, 3 cases of iatrogenic spinal cord injury following cervical spine surgery were identified. Institutional incidence rates ranged from 0.0% to 0.24%. Of the 3 patients with quadriplegia, one underwent anterior-only surgery with 2-level cervical corpectomy, one underwent anterior surgery with corpectomy in addition to posterior surgery, and one underwent posterior decompression and fusion surgery alone. One patient had complete neurologic recovery, one partially recovered, and one did not recover motor function. CONCLUSION: Iatrogenic spinal cord injury following cervical spine surgery is a rare and devastating adverse event. No standard protocol exists that can guarantee prevention of this complication, and there is a lack of consensus regarding evaluation and treatment when it does occur. Emergent imaging with magnetic resonance imaging or computed tomography myelography to evaluate for compressive etiology or malpositioned instrumentation and avoidance of hypotension should be performed in cases of intraoperative and postoperative spinal cord injury