Abstract
Study Design
Retrospective cohort.
Objective
Limited evidence exists for outcomes after elective cervical and lumbar fusion in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) or diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis (DISH). This study aimed to compare perioperative and patient-reported outcomes between patients with AS/DISH and matched control patients.
Methods
Adults with AS/DISH undergoing primary elective ACDF, PCDF, PLDF, or TLIF from 2004-2023 were identified. AS/DISH patients were propensity score matched (1:3) to controls without ankylosing disorders. Outcomes included readmission rates, discharge disposition, revision/reoperation, and patient-reported outcome measures at baseline and follow-up. Chi-square and t-tests were used, with P < 0.05 as significant.
Results
66 AS/DISH patients (42 cervical, 24 lumbar) were matched to 198 controls. AS/DISH patients had higher Charlson Comorbidity Index scores and greater 0-30 day readmission rates for both cervical (9.5% vs 1.6%, P = 0.035) and lumbar (20.8% vs 2.8%, P = 0.010) fusions. Cervical AS/DISH patients demonstrated superior VAS Neck, VAS Arm, and mJOA scores at several postoperative timepoints. Lumbar AS/DISH patients showed greater early VAS Back improvement (Δ6-month −4.00 vs −2.91, P = 0.010) but smaller VAS Leg gains (Δ6-month −1.50 vs −4.13, P = 0.021). Multivariable regression controlling for CCI score, male sex, and AS/DISH diagnosis identified that a diagnosis of AS/DISH was independently associated with greater odds of 30-day readmissions (OR: 6.04, 95% CI: 1.84-23.38, P = 0.004).
Conclusion
AS/DISH is associated with increased short-term readmissions after elective spinal fusion, despite some superior functional outcomes in cervical procedures. Future studies should evaluate whether targeted perioperative optimization can reduce these risks.
Keywords: III
Keywords: ankylosing spondylitis, diffuse idiopathic hyperostosis, AS, DISH, spinal fusion, patient reported outcome measures
Introduction
Ankylosing spondylitis (AS) is common seronegative inflammatory spondyloarthropathy involving the sacroiliac (SI) joint and axial skeleton that has an estimated global prevalence of up to 0.3%.1,2 The pathophysiology of AS typically involves osteoproliferation which can cause progressive, excess ossification, fusion of vertebral bodies via syndesmophytes, and facet joint ankylosis. 3 Diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis (DISH) is a condition characterized by calcification and contiguous ossification of at least 4 anterolateral vertebral bodies with an estimated prevalence of up to 25%.4,5 However, unlike AS, DISH typically does not involve the SI joint and is thought to have an etiology related to metabolic processes rather than inflammatory causes. 4 Clinically, both AS and DISH are considered ankylosing spinal disorders and can present as axial back/neck pain, spinal rigidity, and symptomatology related to nerve root compression such as radiculopathy and myelopathy.6,7 Furthermore, while both AS and DISH most commonly involve the thoracic or lumbar region in early stages, both diseases can progress to involve the cervical spine.8-12
Patients with DISH are more susceptible to fractures of the vertebra due to a lack of appropriate distribution of forces in trauma, secondary to spinal rigidity which functionally results in an extended lever arm of the spine. 13 Similarly, patients with AS are also susceptible to fractures not only due to spinal rigidity, but also because of poor bone mineral density (BMD) that results from chronic inflammation associated with AS. 14 These patients consequently undergo relatively frequent rates of operative management to treat these fractures.15,16 However, several studies have shown that patients with AS and DISH have worse outcomes compared to healthy patients when undergoing spinal fusion for treatment of vertebral fractures.16,17
Patients with AS/DISH are also more likely to develop symptoms of nerve compression, in part due to ossification of the soft tissue structures such as the posterior longitudinal ligament (PLL), hypertrophy of the ligamentum flavum, and disc degeneration.18,19 Subsequently, such patients often undergo spine surgery more frequently relative to the general population.20,21 Some studies have shown that patients with DISH are more likely to undergo reoperation after spinal decompression with and without fusion.21,22 Other studies have reported good outcomes in patients with AS undergoing elective spine surgeries in the cervical and thoracolumbar spine.23-25 To this end, there is a lack of consensus and overall paucity of studies investigating the impact that AS/DISH diagnoses have on postoperative outcomes and complication rates after elective spinal fusion.
To the authors’ knowledge, the present work is the first to use a large, single institution to investigate postoperative outcomes and complication rates in patients undergoing elective lumbar and cervical fusion procedures in patients with AS/DISH. Specifically, we aimed to: (1) compare perioperative and patient-reported outcomes between AS/DISH patients and matched controls undergoing elective cervical or lumbar fusion, (2) evaluate differences in short-term complication and readmission rates, and (3) determine whether AS/DISH status influences postoperative functional improvement. We hypothesized that patients with AS/DISH undergoing fusion procedures would have worse postoperative outcomes compared to matched controls, given their higher medical comorbidity, altered spinal biomechanics, and greater baseline disability.
Methods
Study Design and Patient Selection
After obtaining Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, a retrospective study was conducted at a tertiary care institution. A structured query language (SQL) was used to identify all adult patients with a diagnosis of AS or DISH who underwent a primary elective anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), posterior cervical discectomy and fusion (PCDF), posterior lumbar decompression and fusion (PLDF), and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) from 2004-2023. Diagnosis of AS was manually confirmed via chart review. Diagnosis of DISH was similarly manually confirmed via chart review via the Resnick criteria. 19 Patients were excluded if they underwent these surgeries for malignancy, infection, or trauma. A total of 264 patients met the inclusion criteria. 66 patients with history of AS/DISH who underwent a spinal fusion procedure were further stratified into groups based on whether they received a primary elective fusion for the cervical and lumbar spine. The AS/DISH patients were then propensity score matched to 198 patients without history of AS/DISH who also underwent similar procedures in a 1:3 ratio.
SQL was used to collect demographic variables such as age, race, sex, body mass index (BMI), Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) score, Distressed Communities Index (DCI) score, and DCI quintile which were confirmed via manual chart review. Similarly, SQL was used to collect surgical variables such as surgery performed, number of levels fused, estimated blood loss (EBL), length of stay (LOS), operating room (OR) time, and cut to close time which were also confirmed via manual chart review.
Outcome Measures
The primary outcomes of interest were patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) which were collected preoperatively and at 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years postoperatively. The delta PROM values for each postoperative score relative to the preoperative score were calculated. Specific PROMs collected included Visual Analog Scale (VAS) neck and arm, VAS back and leg, Neck Disability Index (NDI), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association (mJOA), Short Form-12 Physical Component Summary (PCS), and Short Form-12 Mental Component Summary (MCS). Secondary outcomes of interest included discharge disposition, 0-30 day readmission rates, 31-90 days readmission rates, 1 year revision rates, and 1 year reoperation rates.
Statistical Analysis
Descriptive statistics were used to characterize baseline and surgical variables which were reported as counts with standard deviations and percentages when appropriate. Surgical outcomes were reported as percentages. PROMS were reported as means with standard deviations. Bivariate analysis was conducted which consisted of Pearson Chi-Square tests for categorical variables and Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and t-tests for continuous variables. A multivariable regression was conducted to identify independent predictors of 30-days readmissions after lumbar and cervical fusion. Statistical significance was set at P-value <0.05. Statistical analysis was performed using R software, Rstudio version 4.2 (RStudio, Boston, MA).
Results
Patient Demographics
Among all patients, the AS/DISH cohort had a smaller proportion of females (31.8 vs 47.5%; P = 0.038) and greater CCI scores (3.09 vs 2.27; P = 0.002) relative to the control cohort (Table 1). All other demographic variables were similar between the groups.
Table 1.
Patient Demographics – All Patients
| No ankylosis | Ankylosis | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| N = 198 | N = 66 | ||
| Age | 62.4 (11.2) | 62.1 (11.0) | 0.707 |
| Race | 0.653 | ||
| White | 173 (87.4%) | 57 (86.4%) | |
| Black | 20 (10.1%) | 6 (9.09%) | |
| Other | 5 (2.53%) | 3 (4.55%) | |
| Sex (female) | 94 (47.5%) | 21 (31.8%) | 0.038 |
| BMI | 31.3 (6.70) | 31.3 (6.57) | 0.872 |
| CCI | 2.27 (2.00) | 3.09 (1.63) | 0.002 |
| DCI | 32.9 (24.4) | 33.3 (21.8) | 0.597 |
| DCI quintile | 0.208 | ||
| Prosperous | 83 (41.9%) | 20 (30.8%) | |
| Comfortable | 42 (21.2%) | 22 (33.8%) | |
| Mid-Tier | 42 (21.2%) | 16 (24.6%) | |
| At Risk | 17 (8.59%) | 3 (4.62%) | |
| Distressed | 14 (7.07%) | 4 (6.15%) |
Bold denotes statistical significance.
Abbreviations: BMI: Body Mass Index, CCI: Charlson Comorbidity Index, DCI: Distressed Communities Index.
Among patients who underwent ACDF or PCDF, there were 42 patients with a history of AS/DISH and 126 patients in the control group. The AS/DISH cohort had greater CCI scores (3.02 vs 1.92, P < 0.001) (Table 2). All other demographic variables were similar between the groups (P > 0.05 for all).
Table 2.
Patient Demographics – Cervical Only
| No ankylosis | Ankylosis | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| N = 126 | N = 42 | ||
| Age | 61.1 (11.6) | 61.1 (12.0) | 0.991 |
| Race | 0.738 | ||
| White | 112 (88.9%) | 37 (88.1%) | |
| Black | 11 (8.73%) | 3 (7.14%) | |
| Other | 3 (2.38%) | 2 (4.76%) | |
| Sex (female) | 55 (43.7%) | 14 (33.3%) | 0.319 |
| BMI | 30.8 (6.97) | 31.0 (7.53) | 0.892 |
| CCI | 1.92 (2.07) | 3.02 (1.65) | <0.001 |
| DCI | 31.2 (23.8) | 33.5 (23.1) | 0.384 |
| DCI quintile | 0.544 | ||
| Prosperous | 55 (43.7%) | 14 (34.1%) | |
| Comfortable | 27 (21.4%) | 13 (31.7%) | |
| Mid-Tier | 29 (23.0%) | 8 (19.5%) | |
| At Risk | 5 (3.97%) | 3 (7.32%) | |
| Distressed | 10 (7.94%) | 3 (7.32%) |
Bold denotes statistical significance.
Abbreviations: BMI: Body Mass Index, CCI: Charlson Comorbidity Index, DCI: Distressed Communities Index.
Among patients who underwent TLIF or PLDF, the AS/DISH cohort had a greater proportion of patients in the comfortable (37.5 vs 20.8%) and mid-tier (33.3 vs 18.1%) DCI quintiles but a smaller proportion of patients in the prosperous (25.0 vs 38.9%), at risk (0.00 vs 16.7%), and distressed (4.17 vs 5.56%) DCI quintiles (P = 0.043 for all) (Table 3).
Table 3.
Patient Demographics – Lumbar Only
| No ankylosis | Ankylosis | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| N = 72 | N = 24 | ||
| Age | 64.7 (10.3) | 63.9 (9.05) | 0.482 |
| Race | 1.000 | ||
| White | 61 (84.7%) | 20 (83.3%) | |
| Black | 9 (12.5%) | 3 (12.5%) | |
| Other | 2 (2.78%) | 1 (4.17%) | |
| Sex (female) | 39 (54.2%) | 7 (29.2%) | 0.059 |
| BMI | 32.2 (6.14) | 31.8 (4.54) | 0.939 |
| CCI | 2.89 (1.73) | 3.21 (1.64) | 0.567 |
| DCI | 35.9 (25.2) | 33.0 (19.8) | 0.627 |
| DCI quintile | 0.043 | ||
| Prosperous | 28 (38.9%) | 6 (25.0%) | |
| Comfortable | 15 (20.8%) | 9 (37.5%) | |
| Mid-Tier | 13 (18.1%) | 8 (33.3%) | |
| At Risk | 12 (16.7%) | 0 (0.00%) | |
| Distressed | 4 (5.56%) | 1 (4.17%) |
Bold denotes statistical significance.
Abbreviations: BMI: Body Mass Index, CCI: Charlson Comorbidity Index, DCI: Distressed Communities Index.
Perioperative Outcomes
There were no differences in surgical characteristics between the cohorts in aggregate, cervical fusion, and lumbar fusion analysis (Tables 4-6).
Table 5.
Surgical Characteristics – Cervical Only
| N | No ankylosis | Ankylosis | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N = 126 | N = 42 | |||
| Surgery performed | 168 | 1.000 | ||
| ACDF | 75 (59.5%) | 25 (59.5%) | ||
| PCDF | 51 (40.5%) | 17 (40.5%) | ||
| Number of levels fused | 168 | 3.19 (1.88) | 3.24 (2.09) | 0.894 |
| EBL | 49 | 196 (221) | 170 (189) | 0.925 |
| LOS | 133 | 2.53 (1.68) | 3.93 (7.97) | 0.561 |
| OR time | 113 | 246 (91.6) | 248 (89.9) | 0.930 |
| Cut to close | 114 | 164 (77.6) | 163 (73.3) | 0.965 |
Bold denotes statistical significance.
Abbreviations: ACDF: Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion, PCDF: Posterior Cervical Decompression and Fusion, EBL: Estimated Blood Loss, LOS: Length of Stay, OR: Operating Room.
Table 4.
Surgical Characteristics – All Patients
| N | No ankylosis | Ankylosis | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N = 198 | N = 66 | |||
| Surgery performed | 264 | 1.000 | ||
| ACDF | 75 (37.9%) | 25 (37.9%) | ||
| PCDF | 51 (25.8%) | 17 (25.8%) | ||
| PLDF | 51 (25.8%) | 17 (25.8%) | ||
| TLIF | 21 (10.6%) | 7 (10.6%) | ||
| Number of levels fused | 264 | 2.81 (1.97) | 2.83 (2.03) | 0.940 |
| EBL | 57 | 196 (221) | 416 (715) | 0.158 |
| LOS | 223 | 2.84 (1.82) | 4.00 (6.59) | 0.433 |
| OR time | 183 | 260 (110) | 267 (109) | 0.564 |
| Cut to close | 184 | 185 (98.7) | 184 (95.0) | 0.931 |
Bold denotes statistical significance.
Abbreviations: ACDF: Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion, PCDF: Posterior Cervical Decompression and Fusion, PLDF: Posterior Lumbar Decompression and Fusion, TLIF: Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion, EBL: Estimated Blood Loss, LOS: Length of Stay, OR: Operating Room.
Table 6.
Surgical Characteristics – Lumbar Only
| N | No ankylosis | Ankylosis | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N = 72 | N = 24 | |||
| Surgery performed | 96 | 1.000 | ||
| PLDF | 51 (70.8%) | 17 (70.8%) | ||
| TLIF | 21 (29.2%) | 7 (29.2%) | ||
| Number of levels fused | 96 | 2.14 (1.94) | 2.12 (1.73) | 0.823 |
| EBL | 8 | . (.) | 969 (1111) | . |
| LOS | 90 | 3.26 (1.92) | 4.10 (3.11) | 0.336 |
| OR time | 70 | 280 (129) | 313 (139) | 0.294 |
| Cut to close | 70 | 214 (118) | 234 (123) | 0.513 |
Bold denotes statistical significance.
Abbreviations: PLDF: Posterior Lumbar Decompression and Fusion, TLIF: Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion, EBL: Estimated Blood Loss, LOS: Length of Stay, OR: Operating Room.
Among all patients, the AS/DISH cohort had a greater proportion of patients with 0-30 days readmissions (13.6 vs 2.02%; P = 0.001), 31-90 days readmissions (4.55 vs 0.51%; P = 0.049), 1 total readmission (13.6 vs 1.01%; P < 0.001), and 2 total readmissions (3.03 vs 1.01%; P < 0.001) (Table 7).
Table 7.
Surgical Outcomes – All Patients
| No ankylosis | Ankylosis | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| N = 198 | N = 66 | ||
| Discharge disposition | 0.155 | ||
| Home | 102 (65.0%) | 35 (59.3%) | |
| Home Health Care | 35 (22.3%) | 15 (25.4%) | |
| Inpatient Rehab | 13 (8.28%) | 2 (3.39%) | |
| Skilled Nursing Facility | 7 (4.46%) | 7 (11.9%) | |
| 0-30 Day readmission | 4 (2.02%) | 9 (13.6%) | 0.001 |
| 31-90 Day readmission | 1 (0.51%) | 3 (4.55%) | 0.049 |
| Number of readmissions | <0.001 | ||
| 0 | 194 (98.0%) | 55 (83.3%) | |
| 1 | 2 (1.01%) | 9 (13.6%) | |
| 2 | 2 (1.01%) | 2 (3.03%) | |
| 1 Year revision | 12 (6.06%) | 1 (1.52%) | 0.195 |
| 1 Year reoperation | 13 (6.57%) | 4 (6.06%) | 1.000 |
Bold denotes statistical significance.
Among patients who underwent ACDF or PCDF, the AS/DISH cohort had a greater proportion of patients who had 0-30 days readmissions (9.52 vs 1.59%; P = 0.035), 31-90 days readmissions (7.14 vs 0.79%; P = 0.049), 1 total readmission (9.52 vs 0.79%; P. = 0.004), and 2 total readmissions (4.76 vs 0.79%; P = 0.004) (Table 8).
Table 8.
Surgical Outcomes – Cervical Only
| No ankylosis | Ankylosis | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| N = 126 | N = 42 | ||
| Discharge disposition | 0.373 | ||
| Home | 57 (62.6%) | 28 (73.7%) | |
| Home Health Care | 23 (25.3%) | 5 (13.2%) | |
| Inpatient Rehab | 7 (7.69%) | 2 (5.26%) | |
| Skilled Nursing Facility | 4 (4.40%) | 3 (7.89%) | |
| 0-30 Day readmission | 2 (1.59%) | 4 (9.52%) | 0.035 |
| 31-90 Day readmission | 1 (0.79%) | 3 (7.14%) | 0.049 |
| Number of readmissions | 0.004 | ||
| 0 | 124 (98.4%) | 36 (85.7%) | |
| 1 | 1 (0.79%) | 4 (9.52%) | |
| 2 | 1 (0.79%) | 2 (4.76%) | |
| 1 Year revision | 6 (4.76%) | 0 (0.00%) | 0.338 |
| 1 Year reoperation | 6 (4.76%) | 2 (4.76%) | 1.000 |
Bold denotes statistical significance.
Among patients who underwent TLIF or PLDF, the AS/DISH cohort had a greater proportion of patients who were discharged to home health care (47.6 vs 18.2%) and a skilled nursing facility (19.0 vs 4.55%) and a smaller proportion of patients who were discharged home (33.3 vs 68.2%) (P = 0.002 for all). The AS/DISH cohort also had a greater proportion of 0-30 days readmissions (20.8 vs 2.78%; P = 0.010) and 1 total readmission (20.8 vs 1.39%; P = 0.003). The control group had a greater proportion of patients with 2 total readmissions (1.39 vs 0.00%; P = 0.003) (Table 9).
Table 9.
Surgical Outcomes – Lumbar Only
| No ankylosis | Ankylosis | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| N = 72 | N = 24 | ||
| Discharge disposition | 0.002 | ||
| Home | 45 (68.2%) | 7 (33.3%) | |
| Home Health Care | 12 (18.2%) | 10 (47.6%) | |
| Inpatient Rehab | 6 (9.09%) | 0 (0.00%) | |
| Skilled Nursing Facility | 3 (4.55%) | 4 (19.0%) | |
| 0-30 Day readmission | 2 (2.78%) | 5 (20.8%) | 0.010 |
| 31-90 Day readmission | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | . |
| Number of readmissions | 0.003 | ||
| 0 | 70 (97.2%) | 19 (79.2%) | |
| 1 | 1 (1.39%) | 5 (20.8%) | |
| 2 | 1 (1.39%) | 0 (0.00%) | |
| 1 Year revision | 6 (8.33%) | 1 (4.17%) | 0.676 |
| 1 Year reoperation | 7 (9.72%) | 2 (8.33%) | 1.000 |
Bold denotes statistical significance.
Patient Reported Outcome Measures
Among all patients, the AS/DISH cohort had a lower preoperative NDI score (27.6 vs 37.6; P = 0.033), 12-month postoperative VAS Arm (0.57 vs 2.64; P = 0.029), 12-months delta VAS Leg (−0.33 vs −3.62; P = 0.039). The AS/DISH cohort also had a greater delta 6-months VAS Back (−4.00 vs −2.70; P = 0.002) (Table 10).
Table 10.
PROMs – All Patients
| N | No ankylosis | Ankylosis | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N = 198 | N = 66 | |||
| Pre Op VAS neck | 120 | 4.93 (3.05) | 5.44 (3.11) | 0.416 |
| Post Op 3 month VAS neck | 81 | 3.21 (2.64) | 2.12 (2.47) | 0.227 |
| Delta 3 month VAS neck | 73 | −1.70 (2.91) | −2.83 (4.02) | 0.412 |
| Post Op 6 month VAS neck | 81 | 2.93 (2.80) | 2.50 (2.17) | 0.935 |
| Delta 6 month VAS neck | 70 | −1.78 (2.97) | −3.20 (2.59) | 0.226 |
| Post Op 12 month VAS neck | 106 | 2.72 (2.67) | 0.86 (0.90) | 0.075 |
| Delta 12 month VAS neck | 89 | −2.32 (3.09) | −3.75 (2.63) | 0.309 |
| Post Op 24 month VAS neck | 66 | 2.65 (2.64) | 2.83 (1.72) | 0.549 |
| Delta 24 month VAS neck | 59 | −2.19 (3.58) | −4.40 (2.70) | 0.146 |
| Pre Op VAS arm | 119 | 5.03 (2.93) | 4.61 (3.26) | 0.625 |
| Post Op 3 month VAS arm | 81 | 2.79 (2.53) | 1.62 (1.92) | 0.228 |
| Delta 3 month VAS arm | 72 | −2.00 (3.31) | −2.00 (4.15) | 1.000 |
| Post Op 6 month VAS arm | 81 | 2.67 (2.70) | 1.00 (2.00) | 0.111 |
| Delta 6 month VAS arm | 70 | −2.06 (3.33) | −4.20 (3.77) | 0.278 |
| Post Op 12 month VAS arm | 105 | 2.64 (2.62) | 0.57 (1.13) | 0.029 |
| Delta 12 month VAS arm | 88 | −2.42 (3.42) | −3.75 (2.99) | 0.443 |
| Post Op 24 month VAS arm | 66 | 2.53 (2.98) | 0.83 (1.33) | 0.159 |
| Delta 24 month VAS arm | 59 | −2.80 (4.06) | −4.40 (3.71) | 0.485 |
| Pre Op NDI | 107 | 37.6 (21.5) | 27.6 (14.3) | 0.033 |
| Post Op 3 month NDI | 46 | 26.5 (22.4) | 21.0 (16.8) | 0.571 |
| Delta 3 month NDI | 40 | −10.94 (19.0) | −6.00 (16.3) | 0.525 |
| Post Op 6 month NDI | 41 | 24.9 (22.8) | 20.0 (10.6) | 1.000 |
| Delta 6 month NDI | 35 | −13.88 (17.7) | −19.00 (21.2) | 0.791 |
| Post Op 12 month NDI | 57 | 23.7 (17.6) | 18.3 (15.9) | 0.490 |
| Delta 12 month NDI | 34 | −15.27 (17.3) | −16.00 (.) | . |
| Post Op 24 month NDI | 23 | 26.6 (22.8) | 16.5 (2.52) | 0.839 |
| Delta 24 month NDI | 14 | −20.00 (22.0) | −6.00 (14.1) | 0.362 |
| Pre Op VAS back | 76 | 6.30 (2.67) | 7.89 (1.17) | 0.133 |
| Post Op 3 month VAS back | 57 | 3.53 (2.52) | 5.50 (3.51) | 0.232 |
| Delta 3 month VAS back | 53 | −2.84 (2.87) | −3.00 (4.08) | 0.973 |
| Post Op 6 month VAS back | 65 | 3.53 (2.42) | 5.33 (2.31) | 0.185 |
| Delta 6 month VAS back | 58 | −2.70 (3.05) | −4.00 (0.00) | 0.002 |
| Post Op 12 month VAS back | 71 | 3.48 (2.62) | 4.40 (3.05) | 0.427 |
| Delta 12 month VAS back | 59 | −2.88 (3.02) | −3.67 (3.51) | 0.742 |
| Post Op 24 month VAS back | 42 | 4.21 (3.01) | 6.67 (2.31) | 0.153 |
| Delta 24 month VAS back | 33 | −2.28 (2.85) | 0.00 (.) | . |
| Pre Op VAS leg | 76 | 6.46 (2.99) | 5.11 (3.14) | 0.160 |
| Post Op 3 month VAS leg | 57 | 3.08 (2.85) | 2.25 (1.50) | 0.702 |
| Delta 3 month VAS leg | 53 | −3.76 (3.52) | −0.50 (3.00) | 0.114 |
| Post Op 6 month VAS leg | 65 | 2.95 (2.55) | 4.33 (4.04) | 0.497 |
| Delta 6 month VAS leg | 58 | −3.96 (3.78) | −1.50 (0.71) | 0.170 |
| Post Op 12 month VAS leg | 71 | 3.17 (2.79) | 3.20 (3.56) | 0.847 |
| Delta 12 month VAS leg | 59 | −3.62 (3.70) | −0.33 (1.53) | 0.039 |
| Post Op 24 month VAS leg | 42 | 3.31 (3.29) | 4.33 (3.21) | 0.471 |
| Delta 24 month VAS leg | 33 | −4.25 (3.79) | 1.00 (.) | . |
| Pre Op ODI | 75 | 47.7 (17.3) | 51.2 (16.5) | 0.577 |
| Post Op 3 month ODI | 56 | 30.2 (20.3) | 45.3 (21.6) | 0.152 |
| Delta 3 month ODI | 50 | −18.10 (16.7) | −8.00 (7.21) | 0.112 |
| Post Op 6 month ODI | 65 | 26.6 (17.3) | 43.3 (19.2) | 0.150 |
| Delta 6 month ODI | 59 | −23.01 (18.8) | −9.00 (7.07) | 0.216 |
| Post Op 12 Month ODI | 72 | 26.7 (18.9) | 31.4 (21.7) | 0.557 |
| Delta 12 Month ODI | 59 | −24.05 (21.2) | −8.30 (19.5) | 0.294 |
| Post Op 24 month ODI | 44 | 29.9 (21.6) | 44.4 (10.4) | 0.177 |
| Delta 24 month ODI | 35 | −19.26 (17.2) | 6.00 (.) | . |
| Pre Op mJOA | 123 | 14.0 (3.23) | 14.9 (2.68) | 0.291 |
| Post Op 3 month mJOA | 91 | 15.0 (3.00) | 16.6 (1.74) | 0.144 |
| Delta 3 month mJOA | 84 | 1.04 (3.67) | 1.71 (2.56) | 0.447 |
| Post Op 6 month mJOA | 84 | 15.3 (2.53) | 16.0 (1.55) | 0.672 |
| Delta 6 month mJOA | 78 | 1.34 (2.56) | 1.60 (1.34) | 0.542 |
| Post Op 12 month mJOA | 112 | 15.0 (3.17) | 16.9 (1.55) | 0.085 |
| Delta 12 month mJOA | 99 | 1.17 (3.61) | 1.40 (2.51) | 0.923 |
| Post Op 24 month mJOA | 69 | 14.9 (2.86) | 16.5 (1.38) | 0.216 |
| Delta 24 month mJOA | 61 | 1.09 (3.71) | 1.80 (1.30) | 0.259 |
| Pre Op PCS | 207 | 32.3 (8.79) | 30.9 (8.94) | 0.432 |
| Post Op 3 month PCS | 132 | 34.4 (9.48) | 37.0 (9.66) | 0.392 |
| Delta 3 month PCS | 129 | 2.66 (9.57) | 8.13 (11.9) | 0.149 |
| Post Op 6 month PCS | 145 | 36.9 (11.2) | 32.8 (12.1) | 0.236 |
| Delta 6 month PCS | 139 | 5.35 (11.1) | 4.32 (8.91) | 0.748 |
| Post Op 12 month PCS | 185 | 37.5 (10.6) | 37.9 (12.5) | 0.966 |
| Delta 12 month PCS | 171 | 5.56 (10.5) | 6.51 (9.17) | 0.738 |
| Post Op 24 month PCS | 120 | 36.3 (10.7) | 35.2 (11.6) | 0.657 |
| Delta 24 month PCS | 112 | 4.38 (10.7) | 6.66 (11.9) | 0.717 |
| Pre Op MCS | 207 | 45.3 (12.8) | 47.2 (13.0) | 0.467 |
| Post Op 3 month MCS | 132 | 49.5 (11.4) | 51.1 (13.9) | 0.484 |
| Delta 3 month MCS | 129 | 4.06 (11.0) | 3.67 (11.0) | 0.909 |
| Post Op 6 month MCS | 145 | 49.9 (11.7) | 51.7 (14.8) | 0.378 |
| Delta 6 month MCS | 139 | 4.27 (12.3) | 4.88 (13.8) | 0.956 |
| Post Op 12 month MCS | 185 | 49.9 (12.6) | 56.5 (9.22) | 0.072 |
| Delta 12 month MCS | 171 | 5.26 (13.6) | 6.80 (8.58) | 0.527 |
| Post Op 24 month MCS | 120 | 50.9 (10.9) | 56.2 (8.36) | 0.091 |
| Delta 24 month MCS | 112 | 4.90 (13.3) | 4.74 (11.7) | 0.858 |
Bold denotes statistical significance.
Abbreviations: VAS: Visual Analog Scale, NDI: Neck Disability Index, ODI: Oswestry Disability Index, mJOA: Modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association, PCS: Physical Component Summary, MCS: Mental Component Summary.
Among patients who underwent ACDF or PCDF, the AS/DISH cohort had a lower preoperative NDI (27.1 vs 37.6; P. = 0.036), 12-months postoperative VAS Neck (1.00 vs 2.72; P = 0.003), 12-months postoperative VAS Arm (0.67 vs 2.64; P = 0.007), 24-months postoperative VAS Arm (0.83 vs 2.53; P = 0.027). The AS/DISH cohort also had a higher 3 months postoperative (16.6 vs 15.0; P = 0.035), 12-months postoperative (17.1 vs 15.0; P = 0.007), and 24-months postoperative (16.5 vs 14.9; P = 0.039) mJOA scores and 12-months postoperative MCS (56.8 vs 49.4; P = 0.009) and 24-months postoperative (56.1 vs 50.5; P = 0.032) MCS scores (Table 11).
Table 11.
PROMs – Cervical Only
| N | No ankylosis | Ankylosis | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N = 126 | N = 42 | |||
| Pre Op VAS neck | 117 | 4.99 (3.04) | 5.24 (3.07) | 0.763 |
| Post Op 3 month VAS neck | 79 | 3.24 (2.66) | 2.12 (2.47) | 0.262 |
| Delta 3 month VAS neck | 71 | −1.75 (2.94) | −2.83 (4.02) | 0.547 |
| Post Op 6 month VAS neck | 80 | 2.97 (2.80) | 2.50 (2.17) | 0.633 |
| Delta 6 month VAS neck | 69 | −1.81 (2.99) | −3.20 (2.59) | 0.307 |
| Post Op 12 month VAS neck | 105 | 2.72 (2.67) | 1.00 (0.89) | 0.003 |
| Delta 12 month VAS neck | 89 | −2.32 (3.09) | −3.75 (2.63) | 0.360 |
| Post Op 24 month VAS neck | 66 | 2.65 (2.64) | 2.83 (1.72) | 0.821 |
| Delta 24 month VAS neck | 59 | −2.19 (3.58) | −4.40 (2.70) | 0.146 |
| Pre Op VAS arm | 116 | 5.11 (2.90) | 4.88 (3.14) | 0.782 |
| Post Op 3 month VAS arm | 79 | 2.87 (2.52) | 1.62 (1.92) | 0.124 |
| Delta 3 month VAS arm | 70 | −2.03 (3.35) | −2.00 (4.15) | 0.986 |
| Post Op 6 month VAS arm | 80 | 2.70 (2.70) | 1.00 (2.00) | 0.095 |
| Delta 6 month VAS arm | 69 | −2.09 (3.35) | −4.20 (3.77) | 0.285 |
| Post Op 12 month VAS arm | 104 | 2.64 (2.62) | 0.67 (1.21) | 0.007 |
| Delta 12 month VAS arm | 88 | −2.42 (3.42) | −3.75 (2.99) | 0.443 |
| Post Op 24 month VAS arm | 66 | 2.53 (2.98) | 0.83 (1.33) | 0.027 |
| Delta 24 month VAS arm | 59 | −2.80 (4.06) | −4.40 (3.71) | 0.402 |
| Pre Op NDI | 103 | 37.6 (21.3) | 27.1 (14.8) | 0.036 |
| Post Op 3 month NDI | 46 | 26.5 (22.4) | 21.0 (16.8) | 0.442 |
| Delta 3 month NDI | 40 | −10.94 (19.0) | −6.00 (16.3) | 0.525 |
| Post Op 6 month NDI | 41 | 24.9 (22.8) | 20.0 (10.6) | 0.530 |
| Delta 6 month NDI | 35 | −13.88 (17.7) | −19.00 (21.2) | 0.791 |
| Post Op 12 month NDI | 56 | 23.7 (17.6) | 14.0 (13.3) | 0.185 |
| Delta 12 month NDI | 34 | −15.27 (17.3) | −16.00 (.) | . |
| Post Op 24 month NDI | 23 | 26.6 (22.8) | 16.5 (2.52) | 0.075 |
| Delta 24 month NDI | 14 | −20.00 (22.0) | −6.00 (14.1) | 0.362 |
| Pre Op mJOA | 120 | 13.9 (3.24) | 14.9 (2.75) | 0.177 |
| Post Op 3 month mJOA | 89 | 15.0 (3.02) | 16.6 (1.74) | 0.035 |
| Delta 3 month mJOA | 82 | 1.07 (3.71) | 1.71 (2.56) | 0.557 |
| Post Op 6 month mJOA | 83 | 15.3 (2.54) | 16.0 (1.55) | 0.329 |
| Delta 6 month mJOA | 77 | 1.39 (2.54) | 1.60 (1.34) | 0.763 |
| Post Op 12 month mJOA | 111 | 15.0 (3.17) | 17.1 (1.46) | 0.007 |
| Delta 12 month mJOA | 99 | 1.17 (3.61) | 1.40 (2.51) | 0.854 |
| Post Op 24 month mJOA | 69 | 14.9 (2.86) | 16.5 (1.38) | 0.039 |
| Delta 24 month mJOA | 61 | 1.09 (3.71) | 1.80 (1.30) | 0.372 |
| Pre Op PCS | 132 | 34.0 (9.12) | 33.5 (8.93) | 0.827 |
| Post Op 3 month PCS | 80 | 35.5 (9.89) | 39.5 (9.31) | 0.276 |
| Delta 3 month PCS | 79 | 1.54 (10.3) | 9.06 (14.1) | 0.183 |
| Post Op 6 month PCS | 86 | 37.1 (11.8) | 32.4 (13.6) | 0.401 |
| Delta 6 month PCS | 81 | 3.91 (11.5) | 2.63 (9.41) | 0.745 |
| Post Op 12 month PCS | 125 | 37.5 (11.1) | 40.1 (13.7) | 0.574 |
| Delta 12 month PCS | 114 | 4.25 (9.90) | 4.26 (8.19) | 0.997 |
| Post Op 24 month PCS | 80 | 36.5 (11.2) | 36.9 (12.5) | 0.922 |
| Delta 24 month PCS | 76 | 3.08 (11.0) | 6.81 (13.2) | 0.464 |
| Pre Op MCS | 132 | 44.7 (13.4) | 46.8 (12.7) | 0.498 |
| Post Op 3 month MCS | 80 | 48.8 (11.0) | 52.8 (13.3) | 0.444 |
| Delta 3 month MCS | 79 | 4.55 (11.7) | 7.23 (11.0) | 0.533 |
| Post Op 6 month MCS | 86 | 48.7 (12.1) | 54.1 (11.1) | 0.262 |
| Delta 6 month MCS | 81 | 4.11 (13.4) | 8.14 (14.1) | 0.490 |
| Post Op 12 month MCS | 125 | 49.4 (12.7) | 56.8 (6.79) | 0.009 |
| Delta 12 month MCS | 114 | 5.54 (14.5) | 10.5 (7.72) | 0.131 |
| Post Op 24 month MCS | 80 | 50.5 (11.5) | 56.1 (6.67) | 0.032 |
| Delta 24 month MCS | 76 | 5.16 (14.7) | 6.48 (12.5) | 0.788 |
Bold denotes statistical significance.
Abbreviations: VAS: Visual Analog Scale, NDI: Neck Disability Index, mJOA: Modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association, PCS: Physical Component Summary, MCS: Mental Component Summary.
Among patients who underwent PLDF and TLIF, the AS/DISH cohort had greater preoperative (7.89 vs 6.59; P = 0.018), 6-month postoperative (4.00 vs 3.33; P = 0.045), and delta 6-months (−4.00 vs −2.91; P = 0.010) VAS Back scores. The AS/DISH cohort had lower delta 6-months (−1.50 vs −4.13; P = 0.021) and 12-months (−0.33 vs −3.70; P = 0.037) VAS Leg scores. Finally, this cohort also had greater 6-months (−6.52 vs 4.48; P. = 0.047) and 24 months (−2.25 vs 4.37; P = 0.001) MCS scores (Table 12).
Table 12.
PROMs – Lumbar Only
| N | No ankylosis | Ankylosis | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N = 72 | N = 24 | |||
| Pre Op VAS back | 70 | 6.59 (2.53) | 7.89 (1.17) | 0.018 |
| Post Op 3 month VAS back | 52 | 3.52 (2.41) | 5.50 (3.51) | 0.344 |
| Delta 3 month VAS back | 50 | −2.83 (2.94) | −3.00 (4.08) | 0.938 |
| Post Op 6 month VAS back | 57 | 3.33 (2.43) | 4.00 (0.00) | 0.045 |
| Delta 6 month VAS back | 55 | −2.91 (2.98) | −4.00 (0.00) | 0.010 |
| Post Op 12 month VAS back | 60 | 3.36 (2.62) | 5.00 (3.16) | 0.379 |
| Delta 12 month VAS back | 57 | −2.93 (3.06) | −3.67 (3.51) | 0.752 |
| Post Op 24 month VAS back | 35 | 3.97 (2.97) | 8.00 (.) | . |
| Delta 24 month VAS back | 33 | −2.28 (2.85) | 0.00 (.) | . |
| Pre Op VAS leg | 70 | 6.87 (2.72) | 5.11 (3.14) | 0.143 |
| Post Op 3 month VAS leg | 52 | 2.96 (2.90) | 2.25 (1.50) | 0.446 |
| Delta 3 month VAS leg | 50 | −4.02 (3.37) | −0.50 (3.00) | 0.095 |
| Post Op 6 month VAS leg | 57 | 2.93 (2.62) | 2.50 (3.54) | 0.892 |
| Delta 6 month VAS leg | 55 | −4.13 (3.70) | −1.50 (0.71) | 0.021 |
| Post Op 12 month VAS leg | 60 | 3.30 (2.83) | 4.00 (3.56) | 0.725 |
| Delta 12 month VAS leg | 57 | −3.70 (3.59) | −0.33 (1.53) | 0.037 |
| Post Op 24 month VAS leg | 35 | 3.09 (3.40) | 8.00 (.) | . |
| Delta 24 month VAS leg | 33 | −4.25 (3.79) | 1.00 (.) | . |
| Pre Op ODI | 68 | 49.8 (15.7) | 51.2 (16.5) | 0.818 |
| Post Op 3 month ODI | 51 | 29.6 (20.6) | 45.3 (21.6) | 0.244 |
| Delta 3 month ODI | 47 | −18.73 (16.8) | −8.00 (7.21) | 0.097 |
| Post Op 6 month ODI | 57 | 24.7 (16.6) | 45.0 (26.9) | 0.477 |
| Delta 6 month ODI | 56 | −24.06 (18.5) | −9.00 (7.07) | 0.148 |
| Post Op 12 month ODI | 60 | 25.2 (18.3) | 35.3 (23.0) | 0.452 |
| Delta 12 month ODI | 56 | −24.86 (21.4) | −8.30 (19.5) | 0.276 |
| Post Op 24 month ODI | 37 | 28.6 (21.3) | 46.0 (.) | . |
| Delta 24 month ODI | 34 | −19.24 (17.5) | 6.00 (.) | . |
| Pre Op PCS | 75 | 29.3 (7.34) | 26.4 (7.28) | 0.243 |
| Post Op 3 month PCS | 52 | 32.8 (8.70) | 31.9 (9.42) | 0.865 |
| Delta 3 month PCS | 50 | 4.39 (8.15) | 6.25 (6.93) | 0.640 |
| Post Op 6 month PCS | 59 | 36.6 (10.3) | 34.2 (8.23) | 0.746 |
| Delta 6 month PCS | 58 | 7.26 (10.3) | 10.2 (3.87) | 0.458 |
| Post Op 12 month PCS | 60 | 37.4 (9.71) | 33.4 (9.22) | 0.403 |
| Delta 12 month PCS | 57 | 8.18 (11.2) | 11.0 (10.6) | 0.639 |
| Post Op 24 month PCS | 40 | 36.0 (10.0) | 30.6 (8.72) | 0.315 |
| Delta 24 month PCS | 36 | 6.97 (9.59) | 6.08 (7.61) | 0.898 |
| Pre Op MCS | 75 | 46.4 (11.5) | 47.9 (14.2) | 0.751 |
| Post Op 3 month MCS | 52 | 50.5 (11.9) | 47.9 (16.6) | 0.771 |
| Delta 3 month MCS | 50 | 3.29 (9.90) | −3.45 (7.60) | 0.174 |
| Post Op 6 month MCS | 59 | 51.5 (11.0) | 43.4 (28.7) | 0.759 |
| Delta 6 month MCS | 58 | 4.48 (10.8) | −6.52 (3.04) | 0.047 |
| Post Op 12 month MCS | 60 | 50.7 (12.4) | 55.9 (13.9) | 0.464 |
| Delta 12 month MCS | 57 | 4.70 (11.6) | −0.68 (4.33) | 0.085 |
| Post Op 24 month MCS | 40 | 51.7 (9.86) | 56.6 (13.3) | 0.523 |
| Delta 24 month MCS | 36 | 4.37 (10.2) | −2.25 (0.14) | 0.001 |
Bold denotes statistical significance.
Abbreviations: VAS: Visual Analog Scale, ODI: Oswestry Disability Index, PCS: Physical Component Summary, MCS: Mental Component Summary.
Multivariable regression controlling for CCI score, male sex, and AS/DISH diagnosis identified that a diagnosis of AS/DISH was independently associated with greater odds of 30-day readmissions after cervical and lumbar fusion (OR: 6.04, 95% CI: 1.84-23.38, P = 0.004) (Table 13).
Table 13.
Multivariable Regression Identifying Predictors of 30-Days Readmissions
| Variable | Odds Ratio | Lower 95 | Upper 95 | P Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Spine AS/DISH | 6.04 | 1.84 | 23.39 | 0.004 |
| CCI | 1.17 | 0.84 | 1.62 | 0.339 |
| Male | 0.29 | 0.04 | 1.14 | 0.115 |
Bold denotes statistical significance.
Abbreviations: AS/DISH: Ankylosing Spondylitis/Diffuse Idiopathic Skeletal Hyperostosis, CCI: Charlson Comorbidity Index.
Discussion
AS and DISH are two of the most common ankylosing disorders of the axial skeleton.2,4 Although these two diseases have unique etiologies, they are both ankylosing spinal disorders characterized by ossification of the vertebral bodies and subsequent stiffness of the spine.13,14 Patients with AS/DISH are consequentially more susceptible to sustaining vertebral fractures from minor trauma, and therefore undergo spine surgery at relatively frequent rates.15,16 Furthermore, patients with AS/DISH are more prone to nerve compression due to ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament (PLL), hypertrophy of the ligamentum flavum, and disc degeneration.18,19 While several studies have shown worse outcomes in patients with AS/DISH undergoing operative management for vertebral fractures compared to controls, there is an overall paucity of studies investigating postoperative outcomes after elective spine fusion in these patients.16,17 Our study aimed to investigate the impact that AS/DISH has on postoperative outcomes after primary, elective lumbar and cervical fusion. We identified several differences in postoperative outcomes between patients with AS/DISH and healthy controls who underwent spinal fusion procedures. Patients with AS/DISH tended to have more frequent readmission rates after surgery. Regarding PROMs, interestingly the AS/DISH cohort tended to have superior outcomes with some metrics and inferior outcomes with others.
There were several baseline demographic differences in patients with and without AS/DISH in the present work, largely consistent with existing literature. Patients with AS/DISH were less likely to be female and more likely to have greater CCI scores. Historically, AS has been thought to be a disease that overwhelmingly affected more males than females with several studies demonstrating the male: female ratio of AS prevalence to be as high as 2.7:1.26,27 However, other sources have reported a more even distribution of AS prevalence between genders, attributing the historical under-diagnosis of AS in women to the tendency of females to have less severe radiographic manifestations of AS compared to males.28,29 Similarly, Le et al reported a 2:1 distribution of males to females diagnosed with DISH. 19 Several studies have also corroborated our findings regarding greater CCI score in our AS/DISH cohort compared to controls. A Korean population study performed by Lee et al matched 1111 patients with AS to 5555 controls and found that the AS cohort had 2.18 greater odds of having a CCI score of greater than or equal to 3. 30 In addition, several studies have reported metabolic syndrome to be a risk factor developing DISH which likely contributed to the greater CCI scores seen in our AS/DISH cohort. 31
Interestingly, there were no significant differences in surgical characteristics between our AS/DISH and control cohorts. This is somewhat contradictory with the current literature. There is a theoretical supposition that spine surgeries in patients with AS are overall more complex and more prone to complications, potentially due to the poor bone quality and increased comorbidity burden that are characteristic of AS.24,32 Furthermore, a retrospective database study demonstrated that patients with AS have a 1.5 times greater odds of requiring blood transfusions relative to controls in patients undergoing thoracolumbar fusion for treatment of vertebral fractures. 33 Regarding the impact that DISH has on postoperative outcomes, Shimizu et al demonstrated that patients with DISH had greater numbers of levels fused (4.2 vs 1.8; P < 0.001), greater length of surgery (200 vs 136 minutes; P < 0.001), and EBL (438 vs 169 mL; P = 0.008) relative to non-DISH patients when treated for cervical spinal cord injuries. In our present work, the AS/DISH cohort had greater, albeit not statistically significant, EBL, LOS, and OR time in aggregate analysis. 34 We postulate that this may partially be explained by our small sample size, which may have been underpowered to detect differences between our cohorts. In addition, many of the studies that investigate surgical characteristics in fusion procedures in patients with AS/DISH focus on lumbar and/or cervical fusion that is indicated for traumatic fractures, rather than on elective surgeries. This highlights a need for future studies with larger sample sizes comparing outcomes after primary, elective fusions in patients with and without ankylosing disorders.
Patients with AS/DISH were found to generally have more frequent readmissions and non-home discharge dispositions in the current work. While there is limited literature directly investigating the impact that these diagnoses have on readmission rates and non-home discharge dispositions, several studies have demonstrated that greater comorbidity burden can influence these factors in spine surgery.35,36 Within our AS/DISH cohort, it is possible that the increased readmission rates and non-home discharges in are partially explained by the increased comorbidity burden of the cohort. However, our multivariable regression controlling for baseline differences in sex and CCI score identified AS/DISH diagnoses to be independently predictive of 30-days readmissions, indicating that patients with ankylosing disorders of the lumbar and cervical spine tend to experience greater readmission rates after spinal fusion independent of comorbidity burden. However, further studies are needed to contextualize these findings. While there were no differences in 1 year revision or reoperation rates between the AS/DISH and control cohorts in the current study, several studies have reported discordant findings. Otsuki et al first investigated outcomes after short-segment lumbar interbody fusion in patients with DISH and found that patients with DISH were significantly more likely to undergo reoperation (25.6% vs 6.5%). 37 Otsuki et al conducted a similar study investigating reoperation rates after lumbar decompression procedures without fusion, and found that patients with DISH were more likely to undergo revision surgery (19% vs 6.9%) compared to healthy controls. 22 However, it is difficult to contextualize the findings of the present work due to a paucity of studies investigating this topic, also highlighting a need for future research.
Patients undergoing cervical spine surgery demonstrated superior outcomes regarding VAS Neck, VAS Arm, and mJOA at certain postoperative timepoints relative to the control cohort. These findings are somewhat concordant with those from a study by Alam et al, demonstrating that VAS scores significantly improved from 6.1 preoperatively to 3.1 postoperatively in AS patients undergoing operative management of vertebral fractures. 38 Similarly, Kato et al demonstrated that there was no difference in the degree of improvement after operative management of vertebral fractures between DISH and non-DISH patients. 39 Chen et al investigated outcomes after cervical fixation for treating cervical fractures in patients with AS and demonstrated that VAS score improved from 6.88 preoperatively to 1.47 3-months postoperatively. Regarding mJOA scores, our AS/DISH cohort demonstrated superior metrics at various postoperative time points compared to our controls, indicating that they had superior clinical status in terms of myelopathic symptoms. Overall, these findings suggest that AS/DISH diagnosis does not prevent a patient from experiencing clinical benefit after elective cervical fusion.
A generalizable pattern of trends in PROMs was not as apparent among our AS/DISH patients undergoing lumbar fusion procedures. While our AS/DISH cohort had greater 6-month postoperative VAS Back scores, the delta value of VAS Back scores 6-months postoperatively was also superior in the AS/DISH cohort. This may partially be explained by the greater preoperative VAS Back scores observed in our AS/DISH cohort, which has been shown to be predictive of greater ability to achieve minimum clinically important difference after lumbar fusion. 40 In contrast, our AS/DISH cohort demonstrated inferior improvements in VAS Leg scores are multiple postoperative timepoints compared to the control. Furthermore, patients with AS/DISH undergoing both lumbar and cervical fusion had greater postoperative MCS scores, indicating that AS/DISH diagnosis can be associated with worse mental state even after successful decompression and fusion. However, it is difficult to contextualize these findings to determine the impact that AS/DISH diagnosis has on postoperative PROMs after elective lumbar fusion, indicating a need for future work investigating this topic.
This study has several limitations. First, due to the retrospective nature of this study, it is not possible to draw casual relationships from our findings. Therefore, while we were able to determine that AS/DISH diagnosis was associated with several postoperative outcomes after primary, elective lumbar and cervical fusion, it is not possible to discern that the AS/DISH diagnosis was the sole cause of these findings. In addition, since this study was conducted at a single, large institution, it is not possible to generalize the findings of this study to all clinical settings. Third, although this study is one of the largest scale investigations at a single institution that has investigated the impact of AS/DISH diagnosis on postoperative outcomes after primary elective fusions, the sample size of our AS/DISH diagnosis remained relatively small which potentially underpowered our study to detect true outcomes. Future, larger scale or multi-institution studies can therefore be considered in future work. Finally, patients with AS and DISH were combined into a single cohort which limited our ability to determine whether there were differences in postoperative profiles after elective fusion between patients with these diagnoses. This is especially important considering that patient demographics and pathophysiology of these disorders may differ considerably. However, given that these diagnoses are both ankylosing disorders of the spine that result in stiffness, the authors deemed it appropriate to combine such patients into a single cohort to determine the impact that spine stiffness has on outcomes after spine surgery, especially considering that the sample sizes of patients with AS and DISH separately would likely have resulted in an underpowered study. Future studies are needed to determine the independent impact that these diagnoses have on postoperative outcomes after elective fusion.
Conclusion
The current work is one of the largest single-institution studies that have investigated the impact that AS/DISH have on postoperative outcomes after primary, elective lumbar and cervical fusion. Overall, the present study demonstrated generally similar PROMs between our AS/DISH and control cohorts. However, our AS/DISH cohort demonstrated significantly higher readmission rates. Patients with AS/DISH undergoing primary, elective lumbar and cervical fusions may potentially benefit from medical optimization and multimodal postoperative management via early mobilization, pain expectation counseling, proactive pain control, and proper DMARD management to decrease readmission risk.
Funding: The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
The authors declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: AF: None. JB: None. MN: Stryker. Inc. – paid consultant, Johnson & Johnson Ethicon Inc. – paid consultant, CurvaFix Inc. – paid consultant, Pacira BioSciences Inc. – paid consultant, Sage Products Inc. – paid consultant, Alafair Biosciences Inc. – paid consultant, Next Science LLC – paid consultant, Bonutti Technologies Inc. – paid consultant, Hippocrates Opportunities Fund LLC – paid consultant, and Ferghana Partners Inc. – paid consultant.. GB: None. AG: None. JD: None. RN: None. RH: None. CH: None. RJO: None. JO: None. YE: None. WG: None. JM: None. MC: None. NP: None. MS: None. SF: None. RC: None. JAR: Cervical Spine Research Society- Board or committee member, Globus Medical- Paid consultant, The Spine Journal- Editorial or governing board, XTANT Medical- Stock or stock Options, IDK: Camber Spine – paid consultant; research support, Johnson & Johnson – paid consultant, North American Spine Society – board or committee member, Nuvasive – paid consultant, Spinal Cord and Case Series – editorial or governing board, Thieme – publishing royalties, financial or material support. JAC: Accelus – research support, Cervical Spine Research Society – board or committee member, PathKeeper Surgical – stock or stock options; unpaid consultant, Wolters Kluwer Health – Lippincott Williams & Wilkins – editorial or governing board. ASH: Biomet – IP royalties, CTL America – IP royalties, Paradigm spine – stock or stock options. ARV: Receives royalties from Stryker, Globus, Medtronic, Atlas Spine, Alphatech Spine, SpineWave, Spinal Elements, Curiteva, Elsevier, Jaypee, Stout Medical, Taylor Francis/Hodder and Stoughton, Wolters Kluwer, and Wheel House Medical, and Thieme; has stock or stock options in Accelus, Advanced Spinal Intellectual Properties, Atlas, Avaz Surgical, AVKN Patient Driven Care, Cytonics, Deep Health, Dimension Orthotics LLC, Electocore, Flagship Surgical, FlowPharma, Rothman Institute and Related Properties, Globus, Harvard MedTech, Innovative Surgical Design, Jushi (Haywood), Orthobullets, Parvizi Surgical Innovation, Progressive Spinal Technologies, Sentryx, Stout Medical, See All AI, and ViewFi Health; is a consultant for Curiteva, Medcura, Stryker, Globus, Spinal Elements, Accelus, Wheel House Medical, and Ferring Pharmaceutical; Serves on Scientific Advisory Board / Board of Directors / Committee for National Spine Health Foundation (NSHF), Sentryx, and Accelus; and is a member in good standing/independent contractor for AO Spine. CKK: Clinical Spine Surgery – editorial or governing board, Inion – IP royalties, Regeneration Technologies, Inc. – research support. GDS: Advance Medical – paid consultant, AOSpine – board or committee member, AOSpine – other financial or material support, Bioventus – paid consultant, Cerapedics – research support, Cervical Spine Research Society – board or committee member, DePuy, A Johnson & Johnson Company – research support, Medtronic Sofamor Danek – research support, Surgalign – paid consultant, Wolters Kluwer Health – Lippincott Williams & Wilkins – editorial or governing board.
Data Source: All data utilized in this study were sourced from institutional records.
Drug Statement: The drug(s) mentioned in this study is FDA-approved or approved by corresponding national agency for this indication.
ORCID iDs
Adam Fano https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1122-6350
Mitchell Ng https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5831-055X
Chloe Herczeg https://orcid.org/0009-0001-7147-4890
William Green https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7147-0542
Ian D. Kaye https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0797-8760
Jose Canseco https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2152-5725
Alan Hilibrand https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8811-9687
Ethical Consideration
This is an IRB-approved retrospective study (approval #19D.508).
Consent to Participate
All patient information was de-identified and patient consent was not required. Patient data will not be shared with third parties.
Data Availability Statement
All relevant data are included in the manuscript draft, tables, and figures. The raw data are available upon reasonable request from the corresponding author.*
References
- 1.Zhu W, He X, Cheng K, et al. Ankylosing spondylitis: etiology, pathogenesis, and treatments. Bone Res. Sichuan University. 2019;7(1):22. doi: 10.1038/s41413-019-0057-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Fakih O, Ramon A, Chouk M, et al. Comparison of sacroiliac CT findings in patients with and without ankylosing spondylitis aged over 50 years. Sci Rep. 2023;13(1):17901. doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-45082-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Dakwar E, Reddy J, Vale FL, Uribe JS. A review of the pathogenesis of ankylosing spondylitis. Neurosurg Focus. 2008;24(1):E2. doi: 10.3171/FOC/2008/24/1/E2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Kuperus JS, Mohamed Hoesein FAA, de Jong PA, Verlaan JJ. Diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis: etiology and clinical relevance. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2020;34(3):101527. doi: 10.1016/j.berh.2020.101527. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Yunoki M, Suzuki K, Uneda A, Okubo S, Hirashita K, Yoshino K. The importance of recognizing diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis for neurosurgeons: a review. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo). 2016;56(8):510-515. doi: 10.2176/nmc.ra.2016-0013. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Vaishya R, Vijay V, Nwagbara IC, Agarwal AK. Diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis (DISH) - a common but less known cause of back pain. J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2017;8(2):191-196. doi: 10.1016/j.jcot.2016.11.006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Cumming WJ, Saunders M. Radiculopathy as a complication of ankylosing spondylitis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1978;41(6):569-570. doi: 10.1136/jnnp.41.6.569. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.El Maghraoui A, Bensabbah R, Bahiri R, Bezza A, Guedira N, Hajjaj-Hassouni N. Cervical spine involvement in ankylosing spondylitis. Clin Rheumatol. 2003;22(2):94-98. doi: 10.1007/s10067-002-0681-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Ezra D, Mader R, Yosef A, et al. Prevalence and characteristics of osseous bridging between vertebral bodies in the cervical spine: a skeletal study. Clin Anat. 2025;38(1):75-82. doi: 10.1002/ca.24205. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Ostergaard M, Lambert RGW. Imaging in ankylosing spondylitis. Ther Adv Musculoskelet Dis. 2012;4(4):301-311. doi: 10.1177/1759720X11436240. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Weber U, Pfirrmann CWA, Kissling RO, Hodler J, Zanetti M. Whole body MR imaging in ankylosing spondylitis: a descriptive pilot study in patients with suspected early and active confirmed ankylosing spondylitis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2007;8:20. doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-8-20. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Mader R, Verlaan JJ, Eshed I, et al. Diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis (DISH): where we are now and where to go next. RMD Open. 2017;3(1):e000472. doi: 10.1136/rmdopen-2017-000472. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Taher AW, Page PS, Greeneway GP, et al. Spinal fractures in the setting of diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis conservatively treated via orthosis: illustrative cases. J neurosurg Case lessons. 2022;3(20):CASE21689. doi: 10.3171/CASE21689. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Zhang M, Li XM, Wang GS, et al. The association between ankylosing spondylitis and the risk of any, hip, or vertebral fracture: a meta-analysis. Medicine. 2017;96(50):e8458. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000008458. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Chen SR, Munsch MA, Chen J, et al. Spine fractures of patients with ankylosing spondylitis and diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis: fracture severity and injury-related mortality at a level I trauma Center. Asian Spine J. 2023;17(3):549-558. doi: 10.31616/asj.2022.0155. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.McCarty S, Bruckner JJ, Camacho JE, et al. Comparison of outcomes in percutaneous fixation of traumatic fractures between ankylosing spondylitis and diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis. Global Spine J. 2023;13(7):1821-1828. doi: 10.1177/21925682211052003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Westerveld LA, van Bemmel JC, Dhert WJA, Oner FC, Verlaan JJ. Clinical outcome after traumatic spinal fractures in patients with ankylosing spinal disorders compared with control patients. Spine J. 2014;14(5):729-740. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2013.06.038. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Netsanet R, Look N, Koshak C, Patel V. Decompression without fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis at a single mobile segment in adults with ankylosing spondylitis: a report of 2 cases. JBJS Case Connect July-September 2022;12(3):e21.00800. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.CC.21.00800 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Le HV, Wick JB, Van BW, Klineberg EO. Diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis of the spine: pathophysiology, diagnosis, and management. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2021;29(24):1044-1051. doi: 10.5435/JAAOS-D-20-01344. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Lu MC, Koo M, Lai NS. Incident spine surgery in patients with ankylosing spondylitis: a secondary cohort analysis of a nationwide, population-based health claims database. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2018;70(9):1416-1420. doi: 10.1002/acr.23478. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Yamada K, Satoh S, Hashizume H, et al. Diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis is associated with lumbar spinal stenosis requiring surgery. J Bone Miner Metab. 2019;37(1):118-124. doi: 10.1007/s00774-017-0901-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Otsuki B, Fujibayashi S, Tanida S, Shimizu T, Lyman S, Matsuda S. Outcomes of lumbar decompression surgery in patients with diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis (DISH). J Orthop Sci. 2019;24(6):957-962. doi: 10.1016/j.jos.2019.09.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Huang Z, Guo J, Zhang J, We L, Wang J, Jia Y. Clinical outcomes for andersson lesion in patients with ankylosing spondylitis by transforaminal thoracolumbar intervertebral fusion surgery. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil. 2023;36(1):237-244. doi: 10.3233/BMR-220053. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Chehrassan M, Shakeri M, Nikouei F, et al. Understanding the pros and cons of spine surgery for ankylosing spondylitis: experience from a single institution study. BMC Rheumatol. 2025;9(1):11. doi: 10.1186/s41927-025-00461-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Koh WH, Garrett SL, Calin A. Cervical spine surgery in ankylosing spondylitis: is the outcome good? Clin Rheumatol. 1997;16(5):466-470. doi: 10.1007/BF02238939. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Will R, Edmunds L, Elswood J, Calin A. Is there sexual inequality in ankylosing spondylitis? A study of 498 women and 1202 men. J Rheumatol. 1990;17(12):1649-1652. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Qian Q, Xu X, He H, et al. Clinical patterns and characteristics of ankylosing spondylitis in China. Clin Rheumatol. 2017;36(7):1561-1568. doi: 10.1007/s10067-017-3660-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Hwang MC, Rozycki M, Kauffman D, Arndt T, Yi E, Weisman MH. Does gender impact a diagnosis of ankylosing spondylitis? ACR Open Rheumatol. 2022;4(6):540-546. doi: 10.1002/acr2.11428. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Nelson DA, Kaplan RM, Kurina LM, Weisman MH. Incidence of ankylosing spondylitis among male and female United States army personnel. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2023;75(2):332-339. doi: 10.1002/acr.24774. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Lee JS, Oh BL, Lee HY, Song YW, Lee EY. Comorbidity, disability, and healthcare expenditure of ankylosing spondylitis in Korea: a population-based study. PLoS One. 2018;13(2):e0192524. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0192524. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Okada E, Ishihara S, Azuma K, et al. Metabolic syndrome is a predisposing factor for diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis. Neurospine. 2021;18(1):109-116. doi: 10.14245/ns.2040350.175. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Joaquim AF, de Oliveira SA, Appenzeller S, Patel AA. Spine surgery and ankylosing spondylitis: optimizing perioperative management. Clin Spine Surg. 2023;36(1):8-14. doi: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000001306. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Puvanesarajah V, Cancienne JM, Shimer AL, Shen FH, Hassanzadeh H. Complications after fusion for thoracolumbar fractures in patients with ankylosing spondylitis. Global Spine J. 2017;7(1):28-32. doi: 10.1055/s-0036-1583175. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Shimizu T, Suda K, Harmon SM, et al. The impact of diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis on nutritional status, neurological outcome, and perioperative complications in patients with cervical spinal cord injury. J Clin Med. 2023;12(17):5714. doi: 10.3390/jcm12175714. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Shinonara K, Ugawa R, Arataki S, Nakahara S, Takeuchi K. Charlson comorbidity index is predictive of postoperative clinical outcome after single-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion surgery. J Orthop Surg Res. 2021;16(1):235. doi: 10.1186/s13018-021-02377-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Bernatz JT, Anderson PA. Thirty-day readmission rates in spine surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurosurg Focus. 2015;39(4):E7. doi: 10.3171/2015.7.FOCUS1534. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Otsuki B, Fujibayashi S, Takemoto M, Kimura H, Shimizu T, Matsuda S. Diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis (DISH) is a risk factor for further surgery in short-segment lumbar interbody fusion. Eur Spine J. 2015;24(11):2514-2519. doi: 10.1007/s00586-014-3603-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Alam MS, Hasan MZ, Choudhury AAM, et al. A comprehensive analysis of surgical outcomes for spinal fractures in patients with ankylosing spondylitis: a 13-Years prospective study. Cureus. 2024;16(12):e76036. doi: 10.7759/cureus.76036. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Kato S, Terada N, Niwa O. Activities of daily living after surgical treatment for osteoporotic vertebral fracture with or without diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis: a retrospective single-institutional study. Asian Spine J. 2020;14(6):847-856. doi: 10.31616/asj.2019.0372. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Nie JW, Hartman TJ, Zheng E, et al. Does preoperative back pain impact patient-reported outcomes in patients undergoing minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for isthmic spondylolisthesis? Clin Spine Surg. 2024;37(5):E179-E184. doi: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000001568. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
All relevant data are included in the manuscript draft, tables, and figures. The raw data are available upon reasonable request from the corresponding author.*