Study Design: Literature review. Objectives: Paraspinal muscle integrity is believed to play a critical role in low back pain (LBP) and numerous spinal deformity diseases and other pain pathologies. The influence of paraspinal muscle atrophy (PMA) on the clinical and radiographic success of spinal surgery has not been established. We aim to survey the literature in order to evaluate the impact of paraspinal muscle atrophy on low back pain, spine pathologies, and postoperative outcomes of spinal surgery. Methods: A review of the literature was conducted using a total of 267 articles identified from a search of the PubMed database and additional resources. A full-text review was conducted of 180 articles, which were assessed based on criteria that included an objective assessment of PMA in addition to measuring its relationship to LBP, thoracolumbar pathology, or surgical outcomes. Results: A total of 34 studies were included in this review. The literature on PMA illustrates an association between LBP and both decreased cross-sectional area and increased fatty infiltration of paraspinal musculature. Atrophy of the erector spinae and psoas muscles have been associated with spinal stenosis, isthmic spondylolisthesis, facet arthropathy, degenerative lumbar kyphosis. A number of studies have also demonstrated an association between PMA and worse postoperative outcomes. Conclusions: PMA is linked to several spinal pathologies and some studies demonstrate an association with worse postoperative outcomes following spinal surgery. There is a need for further research to establish a relationship between preoperative paraspinal muscle integrity and postoperative success, with the potential for guiding surgical decision making.

Study Design: The following is a narrative discussion of bundled payments in spine surgery. Objective: The cost of healthcare in the United States has continued to increase. To lower the cost of healthcare, reimbursement models are being investigated as potential cost saving interventions by driving incentives and quality improvement in fields such a spine surgery. Methods: Narrative overview of literature pertaining to bundled payments in spine surgery synthesizing findings from computerized databases and authoritative texts. Results: Spine surgery is challenging to define payment modes because of high cost variability and surgical decision-making nuances. While implementing bundled care payments in spine surgery, it is important to understand concepts such as value-based purchasing, episodes of care, prospective versus retrospective payment models, one versus two-sided risk, risk adjustment, and outlier protection. Strategies for implementation underscore the importance of risk stratification and modeling, adoption of evidence based clinical pathways, and data collection and dissemination. While bundled care models have been successfully implemented, challenges facing institutions adopting bundled care payment models include financial stressors during adoption of the model, distribution of risks, incentivization of treating only low risk patients, and nuanced variation in procedures leading to variation in costs. Conclusion: An alternative for fee for service payments, bundled care payments may lead to higher cost savings and surgeon accountability in a patient’s care.