1
|
Moorthy V, Goh GS, Cheong Soh RC. What Preoperative Factors Are Associated With Achieving a Clinically Meaningful Improvement and Satisfaction After Single-Level Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Degenerative Spondylolisthesis? Global Spine J 2024; 14:1287-1295. [PMID: 36366979 DOI: 10.1177/21925682221139816] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN Prospective cohort study. OBJECTIVES The purpose of this study was to identify preoperative factors associated with clinically meaningful improvement, patient satisfaction and expectation fulfilment at 2 years follow-up in patients undergoing single-level TLIF for degenerative spondylolisthesis. METHODS Patients who underwent a primary, single-level TLIF for degenerative spondylolisthesis between 2006 and 2015 were identified from a prospectively maintained institutional spine registry. Baseline characteristics and PROMs including the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), 36-Item Short-Form Physical Component Score (SF-36 PCS), Mental Component Score (SF-36 MCS), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) back pain, and VAS leg pain were collected preoperatively, at 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, and 2 years. RESULTS A total of 997 patients were included. Multivariate analyses showed that increasing age (OR 1.039, P < .001) and better preoperative ODI (OR .984, P = .018) were associated with achieving minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for VAS Back. Increasing age (OR 1.032, P = .007) and better preoperative VAS Back (OR .783, P < .001) were associated with achieving MCID for VAS Leg. Lower BMI (OR .952, P = .024) and better preoperative ODI (OR .976, P < .001) were associated with achieving MCID for SF-36 PCS. Importantly, a better preoperative SF-36 MCS was associated with MCID attainment for ODI (OR 1.038, P < .001), satisfaction (OR 1.034, P < .001) and expectation fulfilment (OR 1.024, P < .001). CONCLUSION Patients who were older, have less preoperative disability and better preoperative mental health were significantly more likely to attain clinically meaningful improvement in PROMs and postoperative satisfaction after single-level TLIF. Identification of these factors would aid surgeons in patient selection and surgical counselling for single-level TLIF.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Vikaesh Moorthy
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore
| | - Graham S Goh
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore
| | | |
Collapse
|
2
|
Mooney J, Michalopoulos GD, Alvi MA, Zeitouni D, Chan AK, Mummaneni PV, Bisson EF, Sherrod BA, Haid RW, Knightly JJ, Devin CJ, Pennicooke B, Asher AL, Bydon M. Minimally invasive versus open lumbar spinal fusion: a matched study investigating patient-reported and surgical outcomes. J Neurosurg Spine 2022; 36:753-766. [PMID: 34905727 DOI: 10.3171/2021.10.spine211128] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/26/2021] [Accepted: 10/06/2021] [Indexed: 11/06/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE With the expanding indications for and increasing popularity of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for lumbar spinal fusion, large-scale outcomes analysis to compare MIS approaches with open procedures is warranted. METHODS The authors queried the Quality Outcomes Database for patients who underwent elective lumbar fusion for degenerative spine disease. They performed optimal matching, at a 1:2 ratio between patients who underwent MIS and those who underwent open lumbar fusion, to create two highly homogeneous groups in terms of 33 baseline variables (including demographic characteristics, comorbidities, symptoms, patient-reported scores, indications, and operative details). The outcomes of interest were overall satisfaction, decrease in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and back and leg pain, as well as hospital length of stay (LOS), operative time, reoperations, and incidental durotomy rate. Satisfaction was defined as a score of 1 or 2 on the North American Spine Society scale. Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in ODI was defined as ≥ 30% decrease from baseline. Outcomes were assessed at the 3- and 12-month follow-up evaluations. RESULTS After the groups were matched, the MIS and open groups consisted of 1483 and 2966 patients, respectively. Patients who underwent MIS fusion had higher odds of satisfaction at 3 months (OR 1.4, p = 0.004); no difference was demonstrated at 12 months (OR 1.04, p = 0.67). Lumbar stenosis, single-level fusion, higher American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Classification System grade, and absence of spondylolisthesis were most prominently associated with higher odds of satisfaction with MIS compared with open surgery. Patients in the MIS group had slightly lower ODI scores at 3 months (mean difference 1.61, p = 0.006; MCID OR 1.14, p = 0.0495) and 12 months (mean difference 2.35, p < 0.001; MCID OR 1.29, p < 0.001). MIS was also associated with a greater decrease in leg and back pain at both follow-up time points. The two groups did not differ in operative time and incidental durotomy rate; however, LOS was shorter for the MIS group. Revision surgery at 12 months was less likely for patients who underwent MIS (4.1% vs 5.6%, p = 0.032). CONCLUSIONS In patients who underwent lumbar fusion for degenerative spinal disease, MIS was associated with higher odds of satisfaction at 3 months postoperatively. No difference was demonstrated at the 12-month follow-up. MIS maintained a small, yet consistent, superiority in decreasing ODI and back and leg pain, and MIS was associated with a lower reoperation rate.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- James Mooney
- 1Department of Neurosurgery, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama
| | - Giorgos D Michalopoulos
- 2Mayo Clinic Neuro-Informatics Laboratory, Department of Neurologic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
- 3Department of Neurologic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Mohammed Ali Alvi
- 2Mayo Clinic Neuro-Informatics Laboratory, Department of Neurologic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
- 3Department of Neurologic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Daniel Zeitouni
- 4School of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
| | - Andrew K Chan
- 5Department of Neurological Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, California
| | - Praveen V Mummaneni
- 5Department of Neurological Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, California
| | - Erica F Bisson
- 6Department of Neurosurgery, Clinical Neurosciences Center, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah
| | - Brandon A Sherrod
- 6Department of Neurosurgery, Clinical Neurosciences Center, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah
| | | | | | - Clinton J Devin
- 9Steamboat Orthopaedic and Spine Institute, Steamboat Springs, Colorado
| | - Brenton Pennicooke
- 10Department of Neurosurgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri; and
| | - Anthony L Asher
- 11Neuroscience Institute, Carolina Neurosurgery & Spine Associates, Carolinas Healthcare System, Charlotte, North Carolina
| | - Mohamad Bydon
- 2Mayo Clinic Neuro-Informatics Laboratory, Department of Neurologic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
- 3Department of Neurologic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| |
Collapse
|