Value and cost in less invasive spinal fusion surgery: lessons from a community hospital

Radiographic outcomes and complications of anterior column realignment (ACR): a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Anterior Column Realignment (ACR) was introduced to serve as a powerful segmental kyphosis correction technique in minimally invasive Adult Spinal Deformity (ASD) surgery. Releasing the Anterior Longitudinal Ligament (ALL) and annulus allows opening of the disc space to accommodate hyperlordotic cages. The overall safety and efficacy of ACR has been difficult to determine due to the heterogenicity of surgical techniques, complications reporting, and a paucity of published studies leading to preliminary and controversial conclusions.

PURPOSE

To determine the efficacy and complications rates associated with ACR.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

METHODS

We queried the MEDLINE, Google Scholar, and EMBASE databases for all literature related to ACR procedure with a publication cutoff start date of January 1, 2010. This systematic review was performed utilizing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. nonEnglish, nonhuman, case reports and review article publications were excluded.

RESULTS

A total of 298 studies were identified. Following screening of title, abstract, and full text, 16 articles were included in the review with a total 756 patients. All the studies included in this systematic review were retrospective case series with a level of evidence IV. Ten studies reported ACR-related complications, with an average rate of 27.2%. The rate of reoperations was reported in 5 studies, for which the average reoperation rate was 9.5%. Cage Subsidence (CS) occurred in 13.7%, Proximal Junctional Kyphosis (PJK) in 12.2%, neurologic injury in 7.3%, and Proximal Junctional Failure (PJF) in 2.7%. The vascular injury rate was 0.5%, with bowel perforation and ureteric injury occurring in 0.2%. For the Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) and radiological outcome analysis we excluded studies with less than 12 months follow up leaving 8 studies eligible for the analysis. There was a significant improvement of both local Motion Segment Angle (MSA) and Intra Discal Angle (IDA) with a mean segmental correction of 20° lordosis in the 3 studies that reported these parameters.

CONCLUSION

Based on the limited data available in this systematic review, the ACR technique has significant ability to restore and, when needed, correct the local segmental intervertebral angulation and thereby influencing the overall regional and global sagittal alignment. The associated risk of vascular, bowel, and nerve injury did not seem to be significantly higher in this review than other alternative lumbar interbody fusion techniques. Additional higher quality studies, including a consensus for reporting complications is required to reach definitive conclusions regarding its possible associated risks.

Pros and Cons of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery

This paper reviews current knowledge on minimally invasive spine surgery (MISS). Although it has significant advantages, such as less postoperative pain, short hospital stay, quick return to work, better cosmetics, and less infection rate, there are also disadvantages. The long learning curve, the need for special instruments and types of equipment, high costs, lack of tactile sensation and biplanar imaging, some complications that are hard to treat, and more radiation to the surgeon and surgical team are the disadvantages.Most studies remark that the outcomes of MISS are similar to traditional surgery. Although patients demand it more than surgeons, we predict the broad applications of MISS will replace most of our classical surgical approaches.

Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion (Direct Lateral Interbody Fusion/Extreme Lateral Interbody Fusion) versus Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgery in Spinal Degenerative Disease: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Degenerative diseases of the lumbar spine are often treated with posterior interbody fusion surgery (posterior lumbar interbody fusion [PLIF]) for spinal instability or intractable back pain with neurologic impairment. Several lateral, less invasive procedures have recently been described (lateral lumbar interbody fusion [LLIF]/direct lateral interbody fusion/extreme lateral interbody fusion [XLIF]). The aim of this systematic review is to compare structural and functional outcomes of lateral surgical approaches to PLIF.

METHODS

We conducted a MEDLINE (PubMed), Web of Science, ScienceDirect, and Cochrane Library search for studies focusing on outcomes and complications comparing LLIF (direct lateral interbody fusion/XLIF) and PLIF. The systematic review was reported using the PRISMA criteria.

RESULTS

In total, 1000 research articles were identified, of which 5 studies were included comparing the outcomes and complications between the lateral and posterior approach. Three studies found significantly less perioperative blood loss with a lateral approach. Average hospital stay was shorter in populations who underwent the lateral approach compared with PLIF. Functional outcomes (visual analog scale score/Oswestry Disability Index) were similar or better with LLIF. In most of the included studies, complication rates did not differ between the posterior and lateral approach. Most of the neurologic deficits with XLIF/LLIF were temporary and healed completely within 1 year follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

A lateral approach (XLIF/LLIF) is a good and safe alternative for PLIF in single-level degenerative lumbar diseases, with comparable functional outcomes, shorter hospital stays, and less blood loss. Future prospective studies are needed to establish the role of lateral minimally invasive approaches in spinal degenerative surgery.

Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) reduces total lifetime cost compared with posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) for single-level lumbar spinal fusion surgery: a cost-utility analysis in Thailand

BACKGROUND

Lumbar interbody fusion techniques treat degenerative lumbar diseases effectively. Minimally invasive lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) decreases soft tissue disruption and accelerates recovery better than standard open posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). However, the material cost of LLIF is high, especially in Thailand. The cost-effectiveness of LLIF and PLIF in developing countries is unclear. This study compared the cost-utility and clinical outcomes of LLIF and PLIF in Thailand.

METHODS

Data from patients with lumbar spondylosis who underwent single-level LLIF and PLIF between 2014 and 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. Preoperative and 1-year follow-up EuroQol-5D-5L and healthcare costs were collected. A cost-utility analysis with a lifetime time horizon was performed using a societal perspective. Outcomes are reported as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. A Thai willingness-to-pay threshold of 5003 US dollars (USD) per QALY gained was used.

RESULTS

The 136 enrolled patients had a mean age of 62.26 ± 11.66 years. Fifty-nine patients underwent LLIF, while 77 underwent PLIF. The PLIF group experienced greater estimated blood loss (458.96 vs 167.03 ml; P < 0.001), but the LLIF group had a longer operative time (222.80 vs 194.62 min; P = 0.007). One year postoperatively, the groups' Oswestry Disability Index and EuroQol-Visual Analog Scale scores were improved without statistical significance. The PLIF group had a significantly better utility score than the LLIF group (0.89 vs 0.84; P = 0.023). LLIF's total lifetime cost was less than that of PLIF (30,124 and 33,003 USD). Relative to PLIF, LLIF was not cost-effective according to the Thai willingness-to-pay threshold, with an ICER of 19,359 USD per QALY gained.

CONCLUSIONS

LLIF demonstrated lower total lifetime cost from a societal perspective. Regard to our data, at the 1-year follow-up, the improvement in patient quality of life was less with LLIF than with PLIF. Additionally, economic evaluation modeling based on the context of Thailand showed that LLIF was not cost-effective compared with PLIF. A strategy that facilitates the selection of patients for LLIF is required to optimize patient benefits.

Multilevel tandem spondylolisthesis associated with a reduced "safe zone" for a transpsoas lateral lumbar interbody fusion at L4-5

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) on psoas anatomy and the L4-5 safe zone during lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF).

METHODS

In this retrospective, single-institution analysis, patients managed for low-back pain between 2016 and 2021 were identified. Inclusion criteria were adequate lumbar MR images and radiographs. Exclusion criteria were spine trauma, infection, metastases, transitional anatomy, or prior surgery. There were three age and sex propensity-matched cohorts: 1) controls without DS; 2) patients with single-level DS (SLDS); and 3) patients with multilevel, tandem DS (TDS). Axial T2-weighted MRI was used to measure the apical (ventral) and central positions of the psoas relative to the posterior tangent line at the L4-5 disc. Lumbar lordosis (LL), pelvic incidence (PI), pelvic tilt (PT), sacral slope (SS), and PI-LL mismatch were measured on lumbar radiographs. The primary outcomes were apical and central psoas positions at L4-5, which were calculated using stepwise multivariate linear regression including demographics, spinopelvic parameters, and degree of DS. Secondary outcomes were associations between single- and multilevel DS and spinopelvic parameters, which were calculated using one-way ANOVA with Bonferroni correction for between-group comparisons.

RESULTS

A total of 230 patients (92 without DS, 92 with SLDS, and 46 with TDS) were included. The mean age was 68.0 ± 8.9 years, and 185 patients (80.4%) were female. The mean BMI was 31.0 ± 7.1, and the mean age-adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index (aCCI) was 4.2 ± 1.8. Age, BMI, sex, and aCCI were similar between the groups. Each increased grade of DS (no DS to SLDS to TDS) was associated with significantly increased PI (p < 0.05 for all relationships). PT, PI-LL mismatch, center psoas, and apical position were all significantly greater in the TDS group than in the no-DS and SLDS groups (p < 0.05). DS severity was independently associated with 2.4-mm (95% CI 1.1-3.8 mm) center and 2.6-mm (95% CI 1.2-3.9 mm) apical psoas anterior displacement per increased grade (increasing from no DS to SLDS to TDS).

CONCLUSIONS

TDS represents more severe sagittal malalignment (PI-LL mismatch), pelvic compensation (PT), and changes in the psoas major muscle compared with no DS, and SLDS and is a risk factor for lumbar plexus injury during L4-5 LLIF due to a smaller safe zone.

Biomechanical analysis of stand-alone lumbar interbody cages versus 360° constructs: an in vitro and finite element investigation

OBJECTIVE

Low fusion rates and cage subsidence are limitations of lumbar fixation with stand-alone interbody cages. Various approaches to interbody cage placement exist, yet the need for supplemental posterior fixation is not clear from clinical studies. Therefore, as prospective clinical studies are lacking, a comparison of segmental kinematics, cage properties, and load sharing on vertebral endplates is needed. This laboratory investigation evaluates the mechanical stability and biomechanical properties of various interbody fixation techniques by performing cadaveric and finite element (FE) modeling studies.

METHODS

An in vitro experiment using 7 fresh-frozen human cadavers was designed to test intact spines with 1) stand-alone lateral interbody cage constructs (lateral interbody fusion, LIF) and 2) LIF supplemented with posterior pedicle screw-rod fixation (360° constructs). FE and kinematic data were used to validate a ligamentous FE model of the lumbopelvic spine. The validated model was then used to evaluate the stability of stand-alone LIF, transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), and anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) cages with and without supplemental posterior fixation at the L4-5 level. The FE models of intact and instrumented cases were subjected to a 400-N compressive preload followed by an 8-Nm bending moment to simulate physiological flexion, extension, bending, and axial rotation. Segmental kinematics and load sharing at the inferior endplate were compared.

RESULTS

The FE kinematic predictions were consistent with cadaveric data. The range of motion (ROM) in LIF was significantly lower than intact spines for both stand-alone and 360° constructs. The calculated reduction in motion with respect to intact spines for stand-alone constructs ranged from 43% to 66% for TLIF, 67%-82% for LIF, and 69%-86% for ALIF in flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. In flexion and extension, the maximum reduction in motion was 70% for ALIF versus 81% in LIF for stand-alone cases. When supplemented with posterior fixation, the corresponding reduction in ROM was 76%-87% for TLIF, 86%-91% for LIF, and 90%-92% for ALIF. The addition of posterior instrumentation resulted in a significant reduction in peak stress at the superior endplate of the inferior segment in all scenarios.

CONCLUSIONS

Stand-alone ALIF and LIF cages are most effective in providing stability in lateral bending and axial rotation and less so in flexion and extension. Supplemental posterior instrumentation improves stability for all interbody techniques. Comparative clinical data are needed to further define the indications for stand-alone cages in lumbar fusion surgery.

Early outcomes and safety of outpatient (surgery center) vs inpatient based L5-S1 Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion

We seek to determine the outcomes of patients undergoing outpatient-based ALIF compared to a consecutive series of inpatient based ALIF performed during the same time period. 58 consecutive patients at a single outpatient surgery center underwent ALIF from June 2015 - August 2017 and 79 ALIF's were performed at 2 Inpatient hospitals. Electronic medical records were reviewed for perioperative and postoperative complications as well as secondary interventions. 62 patients met inclusion criteria (29 Outpatient, 33 Inpatient). The inpatient group was significantly older (44 vs 51; p = 0.01). There were 8 postoperative complications. There was no difference in secondary interventions; 28 patients underwent a total of 36 interventions postoperatively for pain. Secondary interventions were performed at an average of 128(outpatient) and 158(inpatient) days (p = 0.55). There was no difference in outcome scores between the inpatient/outpatient groups at any time. Patients receiving a secondary intervention showed no significant improvement in Back VAS scores but, demonstrated a strong trend (p = 0.06) towards leg pain improvement. Patients who did not undergo secondary intervention had significant improvement in both Back and Leg VAS scores at all time points (p < 0.05). Outpatient ALIF is a safe and reproducible procedure with complication rates consistent with or lower than published rates. Patients outcome scores were no different in the inpatient versus outpatient group. Interestingly, there was a high number of secondary interventions performed in both groups. Patients undergoing a secondary procedure did not get statistically significant improvement in Back VAS but, demonstrated a strong trend in Leg VAS patient reported outcome scores.

Perioperative Factors Influencing Postoperative Satisfaction After Lateral Access Surgery for Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis

BACKGROUND

Lateral access surgery (LAS) for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis is a minimally invasive lumbar fusion technique which has been gaining increasing popularity in the recent years. This study aims to identify perioperative factors that influence postoperative satisfaction after LAS for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis.

METHODS

From August 2010 to November 2014, 52 patients with lumbar degenerative conditions (16 male: 36 female, mean age 64.0 ± 8.7 years) were prospectively recruited and underwent LAS by a single surgeon. All patients were assessed preoperatively and 2 years postoperatively with Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS), Oswestry Disability Index, Short-Form 36 (SF-36) scores, North American Spine Society score for neurogenic symptoms, patient satisfaction, and expectation fulfillment. Cobb angles, global lumbar lordosis, disc heights, adjacent disc heights, fusion, and subsidence were rates assessed. Multiple linear regression performed with satisfaction as dependent variable to identify predictive independent variables.

RESULTS

Lower preoperative SF-36 general health scores (P = .03), higher NPRS leg pain scores (P = .04), and longer surgical duration (P = .02) were significant predictors of lower satisfaction (P < .05). NPRS back and leg pain decreased by 80.3 and 83.0%, respectively. Oswestry Disability Index and North American Spine Society score for neurogenic symptoms improved by 76.2 and 75.9%, respectively. Ninety percent of patients reported excellent/good satisfaction. Significant correction and maintenance of Cobb and global lumbar lordosis angles were achieved. There was significant increase in disc heights postoperatively (P = .05) and no significant difference in adjacent disc heights at 2 years (P > .05). Ninety-eight percent of patients achieved Bridwell Fusion Grade 1, and 5.8% had Marchi Grade 3 subsidence.

CONCLUSIONS

Lower preoperative SF-36 general health, higher NPRS leg pain, and longer surgical duration are predictors of lower satisfaction in patients undergoing LAS for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Identifying preoperative predictors for postoperative clinical outcome can assist clinicians in patient education prior to operation.

Management of aortic injury during minimally invasive lateral lumbar interbody fusion

PURPOSE

Minimally invasive lateral approaches to the lumbar spine allow for interbody fusion with good visualization of the disk space, minimal blood loss, and decreased length of stay. Major neurologic, vascular, and visceral complications are rare with this approach; however, the steps in management for severe vascular injuries are not well defined. We present a case report of aortic injury during lateral interbody fusion and discuss the use of endovascular repair.

METHODS

This study is a case report of an intraoperative aortic injury.

RESULTS

A 59-year-old male with ankylosing spondylitis suffered an acute L1 Chance fracture after mechanical fall. He was taken to the operating room for a T10-L4 posterior instrumented fusion followed by a minimally invasive L1-L2 lateral interbody fusion for anterior column support. During the discectomy, brisk arterial bleeding was encountered due to an aortic injury. The vascular surgery team expanded the incision in an attempt to control the bleeding but with limited success. The patient underwent intraoperative angiogram with placement of stent grafts at the level of the injury followed by completion of the interbody fusion. Despite the potentially catastrophic nature of this injury, the patient made a good recovery and was discharged home in stable condition with no new neurologic deficits.

CONCLUSIONS

This case highlights the importance of immediate recognition and imaging of any potential vascular injury during minimally invasive lateral interbody fusion. Given the poor outcomes associated with attempted open repair, endovascular techniques provide a valuable tool for the treatment of these complex injuries with significantly less morbidity.

Biomechanical evaluation of lateral lumbar interbody fusion with secondary augmentation

OBJECTIVE Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) has emerged as a popular method for lumbar fusion. In this study the authors aimed to quantify the biomechanical stability of an interbody implant inserted using the LLIF approach with and without various supplemental fixation methods, including an interspinous plate (IP). METHODS Seven human cadaveric L2-5 specimens were tested intact and in 6 instrumented conditions. The interbody implant was intended to be used with supplemental fixation. In this study, however, the interbody was also tested without supplemental fixation for a relative comparison of these conditions. The instrumented conditions were as follows: 1) interbody implant without supplemental fixation (LLIF construct); and interbody implant with supplemental fixation performed using 2) unilateral pedicle screws (UPS) and rod (LLIF + UPS construct); 3) bilateral pedicle screws (BPS) and rods (LLIF + BPS construct); 4) lateral screws and lateral plate (LP) (LLIF + LP construct); 5) interbody LP and IP (LLIF + LP + IP construct); and 6) IP (LLIF + IP construct). Nondestructive, nonconstraining torque (7.5 Nm maximum) induced flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation, whereas 3D specimen range of motion (ROM) was determined optoelectronically. RESULTS The LLIF construct reduced ROM by 67% in flexion, 52% in extension, 51% in lateral bending, and 44% in axial rotation relative to intact specimens (p < 0.001). Adding BPS to the LLIF construct caused ROM to decrease by 91% in flexion, 82% in extension and lateral bending, and 74% in axial rotation compared with intact specimens (p < 0.001), providing the greatest stability among the constructs. Adding UPS to the LLIF construct imparted approximately one-half the stability provided by LLIF + BPS constructs, demonstrating significantly smaller ROM than the LLIF construct in all directions (flexion, p = 0.037; extension, p < 0.001; lateral bending, p = 0.012) except axial rotation (p = 0.07). Compared with the LLIF construct, the LLIF + LP had a significant reduction in lateral bending (p = 0.012), a moderate reduction in axial rotation (p = 0.18), and almost no benefit to stability in flexion-extension (p = 0.86). The LLIF + LP + IP construct provided stability comparable to that of the LLIF + BPS. The LLIF + IP construct provided a significant decrease in ROM compared with that of the LLIF construct alone in flexion and extension (p = 0.002), but not in lateral bending (p = 0.80) and axial rotation (p = 0.24). No significant difference was seen in flexion, extension, or axial rotation between LLIF + BPS and LLIF + IP constructs. CONCLUSIONS The LLIF construct that was tested significantly decreased ROM in all directions of loading, which indicated a measure of inherent stability. The LP significantly improved the stability of the LLIF construct in lateral bending only. Adding an IP device to the LLIF construct significantly improves stability in sagittal plane rotation. The LLIF + LP + IP construct demonstrated stability comparable to that of the gold standard 360° fixation (LLIF + BPS).

Minimally invasive procedures on the lumbar spine

Degenerative disease of the lumbar spine is a common and increasingly prevalent condition that is often implicated as the primary reason for chronic low back pain and the leading cause of disability in the western world. Surgical management of lumbar degenerative disease has historically been approached by way of open surgical procedures aimed at decompressing and/or stabilizing the lumbar spine. Advances in technology and surgical instrumentation have led to minimally invasive surgical techniques being developed and increasingly used in the treatment of lumbar degenerative disease. Compared to the traditional open spine surgery, minimally invasive techniques require smaller incisions and decrease approach-related morbidity by avoiding muscle crush injury by self-retaining retractors, preventing the disruption of tendon attachment sites of important muscles at the spinous processes, using known anatomic neurovascular and muscle planes, and minimizing collateral soft-tissue injury by limiting the width of the surgical corridor. The theoretical benefits of minimally invasive surgery over traditional open surgery include reduced blood loss, decreased postoperative pain and narcotics use, shorter hospital length of stay, faster recover and quicker return to work and normal activity. This paper describes the different minimally invasive techniques that are currently available for the treatment of degenerative disease of the lumbar spine.

First report of major vascular injury due to lateral transpsoas approach leading to fatality

Extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF) has gained popularity among spine surgeons for treating multiple conditions of the lumbar spine. In contrast to the anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) approach, the minimally invasive XLIF approach affords wide access to the lumbar disc space without an access surgeon and causes minimal tissue disruption. The XLIF approach offers many advantages over other lumbar spine approaches, with a reportedly low complication profile. The authors describe the first fatality reported in the literature following an XLIF approach. They describe the case of a 50-year-old woman who suffered a fatal intraoperative injury to the great vessels during a lateral transpsoas approach to the L4–5 disc space.

Lumbar Lateral Interbody Fusion (LLIF): Comparative Effectiveness and Safety versus PLIF/TLIF and Predictive Factors Affecting LLIF Outcome

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

STUDY RATIONALE

The surgical treatment of adult degenerative lumbar conditions remains controversial. Conventional techniques include posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). A new direct approach known as lumbar lateral interbody fusion (LLIF), or extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF(®)) or direct lateral interbody fusion (DLIF), has been introduced. Objectives The objective of this article is to determine the comparative effectiveness and safety of LLIF, at one or more levels with or without instrumentation, versus PLIF or TLIF surgery in adults with lumbar degenerative conditions, and to determine which preoperative factors affect patient outcomes following LLIF surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was performed using PubMed and bibliographies of key articles. Articles were reviewed by two independent reviewers based on predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Each article was evaluated using a predefined quality rating scheme.

RESULTS

The search yielded 258 citations and the following met our inclusion criteria: three retrospective cohort studies (all using historical cohorts) (class of evidence [CoE] III) examining the comparative effectiveness and safety of LLIF/XLIF(®)/DLIF versus PLIF or TLIF surgery, and one prospective cohort study (CoE II) and two retrospective cohort studies (CoE III) assessing factors affecting patient outcome following LLIF. Patients in the LLIF group experienced less estimated blood loss and a lower mortality risk compared with the PLIF group. The number of levels treated and the preoperative diagnosis were significant predictors of perioperative or early complications in two studies.

CONCLUSION

There is insufficient evidence of the comparative effectiveness of LLIF versus PLIF/TLIF surgery. There is low-quality evidence suggesting that LLIF surgery results in fewer complications or reoperations than PLIF/TLIF surgery. And there is insufficient evidence that any preoperative factors exist that predict patient outcome after LLIF surgery.

Endoscopic transforaminal decompression, interbody fusion, and percutaneous pedicle screw implantation of the lumbar spine: A case series report

Background

On the basis of the experiences gained from conventional open spinal procedures, a long list of desirable objectives have emerged with the evolution of the lesser invasive spinal procedures. At the top of that list is the desire to minimize the trauma of surgery. The rest of the objectives, which include reductions of operating time, surgical blood loss, hospital stay, postoperative narcotic medication, convalescence, complication rates, and escalating health care costs, as well as the desire of elderly patients to continue rigorous physical activities, largely depend on the ability to minimize the trauma of surgery. The purpose of this study was to investigate the feasibility of the least invasive lumbar decompression, interbody fusion and percutaneous pedicle screw implantation, to minimize surgical trauma without compromising the quality of the treatment outcome, as well as to minimize risk of complications.

Methods

In this case series, 60 patients with diagnoses of degenerative disc disease, degenerative motion segments with stenosis, and spondylolisthesis, in whom nonoperative treatments failed, were treated with endoscopic transforaminal decompression and interbody fusion by 1 surgeon in 2 centers. The outcome measures were as follows: operating time, intraoperative blood loss, hospital stay, Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores for back and leg pain, scores on the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, and postoperative imaging studies. A consecutive series of patients who met the treatment criteria completed VAS forms and Roland-Morris questionnaires preoperatively. Surgical procedures included arthroscopic decompression of the foramina and the discs; endplate preparation and implantation of allograft bone chips and bone morphogenetic protein 2 on absorbable collagen sponge into the disc space; and percutaneous implantation of pedicle screws. Postoperatively, the patients again completed the VAS forms and Roland-Morris questionnaires. Their charts were reviewed for office notes, operative notes, hospital stay, medications, and imaging studies. The latest X-ray and computed tomography scan films were reviewed and analyzed. Patients were followed up for a minimum of 6 months. The literature was reviewed for comparison of outcomes.

Results

Sixty patients met the inclusion criteria. The mean age was 52.8 years. The duration of illness averaged 5 years. Follow-up ranged from 6 to 25 months, with a mean of 12 months. Preoperative diagnoses included degenerative disc disease, degenerative motion segments with stenosis, and spondylolisthesis. The mean time in the operating room was 2 hours 54 minutes. Estimated blood loss averaged 57.6 mL. The duration of the hospital stay averaged 2.6 days. Preoperative back pain and leg pain were significantly reduced (P < .005). Forty-seven imaging studies obtained at the last visit, including X-ray and computed tomography scans, showed solid fusion in 28 patients (59.6%), stable fixation in 17 (36.2%), and osteolysis around the pedicle screws in 2 (4.2%). All patients had improvement of motor function, whereas 2 patients complained of residual numbness. In addition, 8 patients (13%) complained of residual discomfort on extension of the lumbar spine. Two patients had pedicle screw–related complications requiring surgery. A review of the literature showed that endoscopic transforaminal decompression and interbody fusion performed better than open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion/posterior lumbar interbody fusion, minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, and extreme lateral lumbar interbody fusion, with regard to most parameters studied.

Conclusions

The endoscopic transforaminal lumbar decompression, interbody fusion, and percutaneous pedicle screw instrumentation consistently produced satisfactory results in all demographics. It performed better than the alternative procedures for most parameters studied.

Grade 2 spondylolisthesis at L4-5 treated by XLIF: safety and midterm results in the "worst case scenario"

Spondylolisthesis is one of the most common indications for spinal surgery. However, no one approach has been proven to be more effective in treating spondylolisthesis. Recent advances in minimally invasive spine technology have allowed for different approaches to be applied to this indication, notably extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF). The risk, however, of using XLIF in treating grade II spondylolisthesis is the ventral position of the lumbar plexus, particularly at L4-5. Objective. This study reports the safety and midterm clinical and radiographic outcomes of patients with grade II lumbar spondylolisthesis treated with XLIF. Methods. 63 patients with grade II spondylolisthesis and spinal stenosis were treated with XLIF and were available for 12-month followup. Of those, 61 (97%) were treated at L4-5. Clinical (VAS, complications, and reoperation rate) and radiographic (anterolisthesis, disk height, and fusion) parameters were assessed. Study Design. Data were collected via a prospective registry and analyzed retrospectively. Results. Sixty-three patients were available for evaluations at least one year postoperatively. Average pain (visual analog scale) decreased from a score of 8.7 at baseline to 2.2 at 12 months postoperatively. Average anterior slippage was reduced by 73% and was well maintained. Average disk height (4.6 mm pre-op and 9.0 mm post-op) nearly doubled after surgery. Slight settling (average 1.3 mm) occurred over the twelve-month follow-up period. There were no neural injuries and no nonunions noted. Conclusions. XLIF is a safe and effective minimally invasive treatment alternative for grade II spondylolisthesis. Real-time neurological monitoring and attention to technique are mandatory.

Economics of less invasive spinal surgery: an analysis of hospital cost differences between open and minimally invasive instrumented spinal fusion procedures during the perioperative period

BACKGROUND

There is great debate about the costs and benefits of technology-driven medical interventions such as instrumented lumbar fusion. With most analyses using charge data, the actual costs incurred by medical institutions performing these procedures are not well understood. The object of the current study was to examine the differences in hospital operating costs between open and minimally invasive spine surgery (MIS) during the perioperative period.

METHODS

Data were collected in the form of a prospective registry from a community hospital after specific Institutional Review Board approval was obtained. The analysis included consecutive adult patients being surgically treated for degenerative conditions of the lumbar spine, with either an MIS or open approach for two-level instrumented lumbar fusion. Patient outcomes and costs were collected for the perioperative period. Hospital operating costs were grouped by hospitalization/operative procedure, transfusions, reoperations, and residual events (health care interactions).

RESULTS

One hundred and one open posterior lumbar interbody fusion (Open group) and 109 MIS patients were treated primarily for stenosis coupled with instability (39.6% and 59.6%, respectively). Mean total hospital costs were $27,055.53 for the Open group and $24,320.16 for the MIS group. This represents a statistically significant cost savings of $2,825.37 (10.4% [95% confidence interval: $522.51-$5,128.23]) when utilizing MIS over traditional Open techniques. Additionally, residual events, complications, and blood transfusions were significantly more frequent in the Open group, compared to the MIS group.

CONCLUSIONS/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Utilizing minimally invasive techniques for instrumented spinal fusion results in decreased hospital operating costs compared to similar open procedures in the early perioperative period. Additionally, patient benefits of minimally invasive techniques include significantly less blood loss, shorter hospital stays, lower complication rate, and a lower number of residual events. Long-term outcome comparisons are needed to evaluate the efficacy of the two treatments.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This work represents a true cost-of-operating comparison between open and MIS approaches for lumbar spine fusion, which has relevance to surgeons, hospitals and payers in medical decision-making.

The lateral transpsoas approach to the lumbar and thoracic spine: A review

Background:

In the last several years, the lateral transpsoas approach to the thoracic and lumbar spine, also known as extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF) or direct lateral interbody fusion (DLIF), has become an increasingly common method to achieve fusion. Several recent large series describe several advantages to this approach, including less tissue dissection, smaller incisions, decreased operative time, blood loss, shorter hospital stay, reduced postoperative pain, enhanced fusion rates, and the ability to place instrumentation through the same incision. Indications for this approach have expanded and now include degenerative disease, tumor, deformity, and infection.

Methods:

A lateral X-ray confirms that the patient is in a truly lateral position. Next, a series of tubes and dilators are used, along with fluoroscopy, to identify the mid-position of the disk to be incised. After continued dilation, the optimal site to enter the disk space is the midpoint of the disk, or a position slightly anterior to the midpoint of the disk. XLIF typically allows for a larger implant to be inserted compared to TLIF or PLIF, and, if necessary, instrumentation can be inserted percutaneously, which would allow for an overall minimally invasive procedure.

Results:

Fixation techniques appear to be equal between XLIF and more traditional approaches. Some caution should be exercised because common fusion levels of the lumbar spine, including L4-5 and L4-S1, are often inaccessible. In addition, XLIF has a unique set of complications, including neural injuries, psoas weakness, and thigh numbness.

Conclusion:

Additional studies are required to further evaluate and monitor the short and long-term safety, efficacy, outcomes, and complications of XLIF procedures.

A comparison of perioperative charges and outcome between open and mini-open approaches for anterior lumbar discectomy and fusion

The objectives of this study were to examine charge data and long-term outcomes of two approaches for anterior lumbar interbody fusion: a mini-open lateral approach (extreme lateral interbody fusion, XLIF) and an open anterior approach (anterior lumbar interbody fusion, ALIF) through retrospective chart review. A total of 202 patients underwent surgery: 87 with ALIF (Open) and 115 with XLIF (Mini-open) procedures, all with transpedicular fixation. Complications occurred in 16.7% of Open, and 8.2% of Mini-open, procedures (p = 0.041). The mean charges ($US) for one-level Mini-open and Open procedures were $91,995 and $102,146, and for two-level procedures were $124,540 and $144,183, respectively. All differences were statistically significant (p < 0.05). This represents a 10% cost-savings, based on charges, for one-level and 13.6% for two-level Mini-open compared to Open procedures. Functional outcomes improved significantly at two years for both cohorts, although the difference between groups was not statistically significant. In conclusion, the Mini-open approach, compared to the Open, resulted in clinical as well as cost benefits with similar long-term outcomes.

Minimally invasive surgery: lateral approach interbody fusion: results and review

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective review of patients treated at 2 institutions with anterior lumbar interbody fusion using a minimally invasive lateral retroperitoneal approach, and review of literature.

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the outcomes from historical literature and from a retrospectively compiled database of patients having undergone anterior interbody fusions performed through a lateral approach.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

A paucity of published literature exists describing outcomes following lateral approach fusion surgery.

METHODS

Patients treated with extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF) were identified through retrospective chart review. Treatment variables included operating room (OR) time, estimated blood loss (EBL), length of hospital stay (LOS), complications, and fusion rate. A literature review, using the National Center for Biotechnology Information databases PubMed/MEDLINE and Google Scholar, yielded 14 peer-reviewed articles reporting outcomes scoring, complications, fusion status, long-term follow-up, and radiographic assessments related to XLIF. Published XLIF results were summarized and evaluated with current study data.

RESULTS

A total of 84 XLIF patients were included in the current cohort analysis. OR time, EBL, and length of hospital stay averaged 199 minutes, 155 mL, and 2.6 days, respectively, and perioperative and postoperative complication rates were 2.4% and 6.1%. Mean follow-up was 15.7 months. Sixty-eight patients showed evidence of solid arthrodesis and no subsidence on computed tomography and flexion/extension radiographs. Results were within the ranges of those in the literature. Literature review identified reports of significant improvements in clinical outcomes scores, radiographic measures, and cost effectiveness.

CONCLUSION

Current data corroborates and contributes to the existing body of literature describing XLIF outcomes. Procedures are generally performed with short OR times, minimal EBL, and few complications. Patients recover quickly, requiring minimal hospital stay, although transient hip/thigh pain and/or weakness is common. Long-term outcomes are generally favorable, with maintained improvements in patient-reported pain and function scores as well as radiographic parameters, including high rates of fusion.

The economics of minimally invasive spine surgery: the value perspective

STUDY DESIGN

Review of the literature.

OBJECTIVE

To summarize current cost and clinical efficacy data in minimally invasive spine (MIS) surgery.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Cost effectiveness (CE), using cost per quality-adjusted life-years gained, has been shown for lumbar discectomy, decompressive laminectomy, and for instrumented and noninstrumented lumbar fusions in several high-quality studies using conventional, open surgical procedures. Currently, comparisons of costs and clinical outcomes of MIS surgery to open (or nonoperative) approaches are rare and of lesser quality, but suggest that a potential for cost benefits exist using less-invasive surgical approaches.

METHODS

A literature review was performed using the database of the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), PUBMED/Medline.

RESULTS

Reports of clinical results of MIS approaches are far more common than economic evaluations. MIS techniques can be classified as endoscopic or nonendoscopic. Although endoscopic approaches decrease some approach morbidities, the high cost of instrumentation, steep learning curves, and new complication profiles introduced have prevented widespread adoption. Additionally, the high costs have not been shown to be justified by superior clinical benefits. Nonendoscopic MIS approaches, such as percutaneous posterior or lateral, and mini-open lateral and anterior approaches, use direct visualization, standard operative techniques, and report lower complication rates, reduced length of stay, and faster recovery time. For newer MIS and mini-open techniques, significantly lower acute and subacute costs were observed compared with open techniques, mainly due to lower rates of complications, shorter length of stay, and less blood loss, as well as fewer discharges to rehab. Although this suggests that certain MIS procedures produce early cost benefits, the quality of the existing data are low.

CONCLUSION

Although the CE of MIS surgery is yet to be carefully studied, the few economic studies that do exist suggest that MIS has the potential to be a cost-effective intervention, but only if improved clinical outcomes are maintained (durable). Longer follow-up and better outcome and cost data are needed to determine if incremental CE exists with MIS techniques, versus open or nonsurgical interventions.