Study Design. Retrospective comparative study. Objective. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether preoperative depressive symptoms, measured by mental component score of the Short Form-12 survey (MCS-12), influence patient-reported outcome measurements (PROMs) following an anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) surgery for cervical degeneration. Summary of Background Data. There is a paucity of literature regarding preoperative depression and PROMs following ACDF surgery for cervical degenerative disease. Methods. Patients who underwent an ACDF for degenerative cervical pathology were identified. A score of 45.6 on the MCS-12 was used as the threshold for depression symptoms, and patients were divided into two groups based on this value: depression (MCS-12 ≤45.6) and nondepression (MCS-12 >45.6) groups. Outcomes including Neck Disability Index (NDI), physical component score of the Short Form-12 survey (PCS-12), and Visual Analogue Scale Neck (VAS Neck), and Arm (VAS Arm) pain scores were evaluated using independent sample t test, recovery ratios, percentage of patients reaching the minimum clinically important difference, and multiple linear regression – controlling for factors such as age, sex, and BMI. Results. The depression group was found to have significantly worse baseline pain and disability than the nondepression group in NDI (P < 0.001), VAS Neck pain (P < 0.001), and VAS Arm pain (P < 0.001) scores. Postoperatively, both groups improved to a similar amount with surgery based on the recovery ratio analysis. The depression group continued to have worse scores than the nondepression group in NDI (P = 0.010), PCS-12 (P = 0.026), and VAS Arm pain (P = 0.001) scores. Depression was not a significant predictor of change in any PROMs based on regression analysis. Conclusion. Patients who presented with preoperative depression reported more pain and disability symptoms preoperatively and postoperatively; however, both groups achieved similar degrees of improvement. Level of Evidence: 3

Purpose of Review To review the most current diagnostic tools and treatment options for pyogenic and tubercular spine infection. Recent Findings Recent studies have focused on risk factors for failed nonoperative management in order to improve patient selection. Also, spine instrumentation and different grafting options have been safely utilized in the setting of an active infection without increasing the incidence of reoccurrence. However, the optimal surgical technique has yet to be established and instead should be patient specific. Summary Spine infections include a broad spectrum of disorders including discitis, vertebral osteomyelitis, and spinal epidural abscess. It is paramount to recognized spine infections early due to the potential catastrophic consequences of paralysis and sepsis. The management of spine infections continues to evolve as newer diagnostic tools and surgical techniques become available. Magnetic resonance imaging with contrast is the imaging study of choice and computed tomography-guided biopsies are crucial for guiding antibiotic selection. Antibiotics are the mainstay of treatment and surgery is indicated in patients with neurological deficits, sepsis, spinal instability, and those who have failed nonoperative treatment.

Study Design. A retrospective review of all elective single-level lumbar fusions performed at a single orthopedic specialty hospital (OSH) and tertiary referral center (TRC). Objective. This study compared the perioperative outcomes for lumbar fusion procedures performed at an OSH and TRC. Summary of Background Data. The role of an OSH for lumbar fusion procedures has not been defined. Methods. A large institutional database was searched for single-level lumbar fusions performed between 2013 and 2016. Comparisons were made between procedures performed at the OSH and TRC in terms of operative time, total operating room (OR) time, length of stay (LOS), inpatient rehabilitation utilization, postoperative 90-day readmission, reoperation, and mortality rates. Results. A total of 101 patients at the OSH and 481 at the TRC were included. There was no difference in gender, age, age adjusted Charlson comorbidity Index (AACCI), body mass index, mean number of concomitant levels decompressed, and use of interbody fusion between OSH and TRC patients. The mean operative time (149.5 vs. 179.7 minutes, P < 0.001), total OR time (195.1 vs. 247.9 minutes, P < 0.001), and postoperative LOS (2.61 vs. 3.73 days, P < 0.001) were significantly shorter at the OSH. More patients required postoperative inpatient rehabilitation at the TRC (7.1% vs. 2%, P < 0.001). There was no difference in 90-day readmission or reoperation rates. There was one mortality at the TRC and two patients required transfer from the OSH to the TRC due to medical complications. Regression analysis demonstrated that procedures performed at the TRC (P < 0.001), total OR time (P = 0.004), AACCI (P < 0.001), current smokers (P = 0.048), and number of decompressed levels (P = 0.032) were independent predictors of LOS. Conclusion. Lumbar fusion procedures may be safely performed at both the OSH and TRC. OSH utilization may demonstrate safe reduction in operative time, total OR time, and postoperative LOS in the appropriately selected patients. Level of Evidence: 3