Impact of lumbar interbody fusion surgery on postoperative outcomes in patients with recurrent lumbar disc herniation: Analysis of the US national inpatient sample

Radiographic Robustness of Lumbar Interbody Fusion Techniques

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective chart review.

OBJECTIVES

Lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) can be achieved with various techniques. Evidence supporting the long-term clinical advantages of one technique over another are inconclusive. The purpose of this study was to (1) determine the changes in sagittal parameters in the preoperative, intraoperative, and post-operative phase, (2) evaluate the radiographic maintenance of these parameters over time, and (3) compare the demographics and patient reported outcomes of patients undergoing various LIF techniques.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective chart review of patients with degenerative spine disease undergoing single level anterior (ALIF), lateral (LLIF), posterior (PLIF), or transforaminal (TLIF) lumbar interbody fusion. Data collected included patient demographics and diagnosis at time of surgery. Upright lumbar radiographs taken pre-operatively, intra-operatively, and post-operatively were measured for lumbar lordosis (LL), segmental lordosis (SL), posterior disc height (PDH), and foraminal height (FH).

RESULTS

194 patients in a single center were included. PDH and FH increased intra-operatively following ALIF (P < .0001), PLIF (P < .0001), LLIF (P < .0001), and TLIF (P < .0001). SL also increased intra-operatively for ALIF (P = .002) and LLIF (P = .0007). Compared to intra-operative radiographs, PDH and FH decreased at latest post-operative phase for ALIF (P < .03), LLIF (P < .003), TLIF (P < .001), and PLIF (P < .005). SL decreased for ALIF (P = .0008), and TLIF (P = .02). LL did not change postoperatively across techniques. Patient reported outcomes improved post-surgically and disability index decreased, but neither differed between techniques.

CONCLUSION

LIF, regardless of technique, was shown to provide significant radiographic changes in PDH and FH. Techniques utilizing larger intervertebral cage sizes (ALIF/LLIF) improved SL. Single level LIF did not affect overall LL. No single technique displayed superior radiographic robustness over time.

Image-Guided Minimally Invasive Treatment Options for Degenerative Lumbar Spine Disease: A Practical Overview of Current Possibilities

Lumbar back pain is one of the main causes of disability around the world. Most patients will complain of back pain at least once in their lifetime. The degenerative spine is considered the main cause and is extremely common in the elderly population. Consequently, treatment-related costs are a major burden to the healthcare system in developed and undeveloped countries. After the failure of conservative treatments or to avoid daily chronic drug intake, invasive treatments should be suggested. In a world where many patients reject surgery and prefer minimally invasive procedures, interventional radiology is pivotal in pain management and could represent a bridge between medical therapy and surgical treatment. We herein report the different image-guided procedures that can be used to manage degenerative spine-related low back pain. Particularly, we will focus on indications, different techniques, and treatment outcomes reported in the literature. This literature review focuses on the different minimally invasive percutaneous treatments currently available, underlining the central role of radiologists having the capability to use high-end imaging technology for diagnosis and subsequent treatment, allowing a global approach, reducing unnecessary surgeries and prolonged pain-reliever drug intake with their consequent related complications, improving patients' quality of life, and reducing the economic burden.

Lumbar disc herniation: Prevention and treatment of recurrence: WFNS spine committee recommendations

Objective

This review aims to formulate the most current evidence-based recommendations on the epidemiology, prevention, and treatment of recurrent lumbar disc herniation (LDH).

Methods

We performed a systematic literature search in PubMed, Medline, and Google Scholar databases from 2012 to 2022 using the keywords "lumbar disc recurrence." Screening criteria resulted in 57 papers, which were summarized and presented at two international consensus meetings of the World Federation of Neurosurgical Societies (WFNS) Spine Committee. The 57 papers covered the following topics: (1) Definition and incidence of recurrence after lumbar disc surgery; (2) Prediction of recurrence before primary surgery; (3) Prevention of recurrence by surgical measures; (4) Prevention of recurrence by postoperative measures; (5) Treatment options for recurrent disc herniation; (6) The outcomes of recurrent disc herniation surgery. We utilized the Delphi method and voted on eight final consensus statements.

Results and conclusion

Recurrence after disc herniation surgery may be considered a surgical complication, its incidence is approximately 5% and is different from overall re-operation incidence. There are multiple risk factors predicting LDH recurrence, including smoking, younger age, male gender, obesity, diabetes, disc degeneration, and presence of lumbosacral transitional vertebrae. The level of lumbar discectomy surgery and the amount of disc material removed do not correlate with recurrence rate. Minimally invasive discectomies may have higher recurrence rates, especially during the surgeon's learning period. However, the experience of the surgeon is not related to recurrence. High-quality studies are needed to determine if activity restriction, weight loss, smoking cessation, and muscle-strengthening exercises after primary surgery can help prevent recurrence of LDH.The best treatment option for recurrent disc herniation is still being discussed. While complications of minimally invasive techniques may be lower than open discectomy, outcomes are similar. Fusion should only be considered when spinal instability and/or spinal deformity are present. Clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction after recurrent disc herniation surgery are inferior to those after initial discectomy.

Does Lumbar Interbody Fusion Modality Affect the Occurrence of Complications in an Osteoporotic Spine Under Whole-Body Vibration? A Finite Element Study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effects of 3 lumbar interbody fusion techniques on the occurrence of complications in an osteoporotic spine under whole-body vibration.

METHODS

A previously developed and validated nonlinear finite element model of L1-S1was modified to develop anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) models with osteoporosis. In each model, the lower surface of the sacrum was absolutely fixed, a follower load of 400N was applied through the axis of the lumbar spine, and an axial sinusoidal vertical load of ±40N (5 Hz) was imposed on the superior surface of L1, to perform a transient dynamic analysis. The maximal values of intradiscal pressure, shear stress on annulus substance, disc bulge, facet joint stress, and screw and rod stress, along with their dynamic response curves, were collected.

RESULTS

Among these 3 models, the TLIF model generated the greatest screw and rod stress, and the PLIF model generated the greatest cage-bone interface stress. At the L3-L4 level, compared with the other 2 models, the maximal values and dynamic response curves of intradiscal pressure, shear stress of annulus ground substance, and disc bulge were all lower in the ALIF model. However, the facet contact stress at the adjacent segment in the ALIF model was higher than that in the other 2 models.

CONCLUSIONS

In an osteoporotic spine under whole-body vibration, TLIF has the highest risk of screw and rod breakage, PLIF has the highest risk of cage subsidence, and ALIF has the lowest risk of upper adjacent disc degeneration, but the highest risk of adjacent facet joint degeneration.

Anterior lumbar spinal fusion surgery associated with lower risk of stroke, pneumonia, and infection compared to posterior lumbar spinal fusion surgery

BACKGROUND

Prior studies, comparing anterior and posterior approaches to lumbar fusion surgery, found similar fusion rates and clinical outcomes, but are limited by sample size. Further evaluation of the postoperative complications of each approach is necessary.

METHODS

The MSpine database by PearlDiver was queried using ICD-9, ICD-10, and CPT codes to identify patients who had undergone single-level anterior or posterior lumbar interbody fusion surgery. Readmission rates, ileus, lower extremity DVT, infection, pneumonia, and stroke were used to compare post-operative complications of an anterior vs. posterior approach.

RESULTS

112,023 patients were included in this study, with 38,529 (34.4%) in the anterior group (ALIF/LLIF) and 73,494 (65.6%) in the posterior group (PLIF/TLIF). At both 30 and 90-days postoperative, patients undergoing an anterior approach to lumbar interbody fusion had a higher odds ratio of lower extremity DVT (30-day OR: 1.19, 90-day OR: 1.16; P<0.05) and ileus complication (30-day OR: 1.87, P= <.05; 90-day OR: 1.81, P<.05). At both 30 and 90-days postoperative, patients undergoing a posterior approach had a higher odds ratio of stroke (30-day: OR: 0.79, 90-day OR: 0.87; P<0.05), transfusion (30-day OR: 0.66, 90-day OR: 0.69; P<.05), infection (30-day OR: 0.88, 90-day OR: 0.91; P <.05), and pneumonia (30-day OR: 0.85, 90-day OR: 0.90; P<.05). There was no statistically significant difference in myocardial infarction or pulmonary embolism between both approaches at 30 and 90-days postoperative.

CONCLUSIONS

Anterior and posterior approaches for lumbar interbody fusion were associated with differences in postoperative complications at 30 and 90-days. The complication profiles associated with each approach can inform surgeon treatment decisions based on patient profiles.

Subsidence after lateral lumbar interbody fusion using a 3D-printed porous titanium interbody cage: single-institution case series

OBJECTIVE

Cage subsidence is a well-known phenomenon after lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF), occurring in 10%-20% of cases. A 3D-printed porous titanium (pTi) cage has a stiffness that mimics the modulus of elasticity of native vertebrae, which reduces stress at the bone-hardware interface, lowering the risk of subsidence. In this study, the authors evaluated their institutional rate of subsidence and resultant reoperation in patients who underwent LLIF using a 3D-printed pTi interbody cage.

METHODS

This is a retrospective case series of consecutive adult patients who underwent LLIF using pTi cages from 2018 to 2020. Demographic and clinical characteristics including age, sex, bone mineral density, smoking status, diabetes, steroid use, number of fusion levels, posterior instrumentation, and graft size were collected. The Marchi subsidence grade was determined at the time of last follow-up. Outcome measures of interest were subsidence and resultant reoperation. Univariable logistic regression analysis was performed to assess the extent to which clinical and operative characteristics were associated with Marchi grade I-III subsidence. Significance was assessed at p < 0.05.

RESULTS

Fifty-five patients (38 with degenerative disc disease and 17 with adult spinal deformity) were treated with 97 pTi interbody cages with a mean follow-up of 18 months. The mean age was 63.6 ± 10.1 years, 60% of patients were female, and 36% of patients had osteopenia or osteoporosis. Patients most commonly underwent single-level LLIF (58.2%). Sixteen patients (29.1%) had posterior instrumentation. The subsidence grade distribution was as follows: 89 (92%) grade 0, 5 (5%) grade I, 2 (2%) grade II, and 1 (1%) grade III. No patients who were active or prior smokers and no patients with posterior instrumentation experienced graft subsidence. No clinical or operative characteristics were significantly associated with graft subsidence. One patient (1.8%) required reoperation because of subsidence.

CONCLUSIONS

In this institutional case series, subsidence of pTi intervertebral cages after LLIF occurred in 8% of operated levels, 3% of which were grade II or III. Only 1 patient required reoperation. These reported rates are lower than those reported for polyetheretherketone implants. Further studies are necessary to compare the impact of these cage materials on subsidence after LLIF.

Single-Level Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion versus Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Posterior Instrumentation at L5/S1

OBJECTIVE

To compare outcomes between minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) and anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) at L5/S1.

METHODS

Primary, elective, single, MIS-TLIF, or ALIF with posterior fixation at L5/S1 were identified. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were collected. Coarsened exact matching was used to control for significant differences. Achievement of minimum clinically important difference [MCID] was determined by comparing ΔPROM scores with threshold values. Demographic/perioperative characteristics were compared between MIS-TLIF and ALIF cohorts using χ² Student t tests. Differences in mean PROM scores, MCID rates, and postoperative complications were evaluated using an unpaired t test.

RESULTS

After coarsened exact matching, 93 patients received MIS-TLIF and 50 received ALIF. Cohorts differed in operative time, estimated blood loss, and postoperative narcotic consumption on postoperative day 0 (P < 0.034, all). Mean PROMs differed significantly on 12-Item Short-Form Physical Component Summary at 6 weeks and 1 year, Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function at 6 weeks, Oswestry Disability Index at 6 weeks, and visual analog scale (VAS) back at 6 weeks, with the ALIF cohort showing significantly improved mean PROMs (P ≤ 0.044, all). Significantly greater rates were reported of MCID achievement for PROMs for the ALIF cohort: VAS back at 6 weeks, Oswestry Disability Index at 12 weeks, 12-Item Short-Form Physical Component Summary at 6 weeks, and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function at 12 weeks (P ≤ 0.047, all). A greater rate of MCID achievement for the MIS-TLIF cohort was seen for 6-week and overall VAS leg (P < 0.046, all). Postoperative fever was greater in the TLIF cohort (9.6% vs. 2.0%; P < 0.047).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing ALIF showed significantly improved rates of MCID achievement for disability, physical function, and back pain during the early postoperative period. However, the overall MCID achievement rate for leg pain was higher for the MIS-TLIF cohort.

Functional and radiological outcome of anterior retroperitoneal versus posterior transforaminal interbody fusion in the management of single-level lumbar degenerative disease

OBJECTIVE

In this study the authors compared the anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) and posterior transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) techniques in a homogeneous group of patients affected by single-level L5–S1 degenerative disc disease (DDD) and postdiscectomy syndrome (PDS). The purpose of the study was to analyze perioperative, functional, and radiological data between the two techniques.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of patient data was performed between 2015 and 2018. Patients were clustered into two homogeneous groups (group 1 = ALIF, group 2 = TLIF) according to surgical procedure. A statistical analysis of clinical perioperative and radiological findings was performed to compare the two groups. A senior musculoskeletal radiologist retrospectively revised all radiological images.

RESULTS

Seventy-two patients were comparable in terms of demographic features and surgical diagnosis and included in the study, involving 32 (44.4%) male and 40 (55.6%) female patients with an average age of 47.7 years. The mean follow-up duration was 49.7 months. Thirty-six patients (50%) were clustered in group 1, including 31 (86%) with DDD and 5 (14%) with PDS. Thirty-six patients (50%) were clustered in group 2, including 28 (78%) with DDD and 8 (22%) with PDS. A significant reduction in surgical time (107.4 vs 181.1 minutes) and blood loss (188.9 vs 387.1 ml) in group 1 (p < 0.0001) was observed. No significant differences in complications and reoperation rates between the two groups (p = 0.561) was observed. A significant improvement in functional outcome was observed in both groups (p < 0.001), but no significant difference between the two groups was found at the last follow-up. In group 1, a faster median time of return to work (2.4 vs 3.2 months) was recorded. A significant improvement in L5–S1 postoperative lordosis restoration was registered in the ALIF group (9.0 vs 5.0, p = 0.023).

CONCLUSIONS

According to these results, interbody fusion is effective in the surgical management of discogenic pain. Even if clinical benefits were achieved earlier in the ALIF group (better scores and faster return to work), both procedures improved functional outcomes at last follow-up. The ALIF group showed significant reduction of blood loss, shorter surgical time, and better segmental lordosis restoration when compared to the TLIF group. No significant differences in postoperative complications were observed between the groups. Based on these results, the ALIF technique enhances radiological outcome improvement in spinopelvic parameters when compared to TLIF in the management of adult patients with L5–S1 DDD.