Posterolateral fusion (PLF) versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) for spondylolisthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Articular arthrodesis with the facet wedge technique for the treatment of unstable lumbar degenerative disease and associated conditions: A retrospective study of 96 patients

Background

Lumbar articular fusion with the facet wedge (FW) technique is gaining increasing interest among surgeons for the treatment of vertebral instability due to its limited invasiveness and ease of use. Studies on cadavers have reported biomechanical properties similar to pedicle screws. Yet, the evidence supporting their use is still limited and moreover focused only on spinal degenerative disease.

Methods

96 cases of lumbar articular fusion with the FW techniques performed at 3 different centers between 2014 and 2022 were retrospectively analyzed based on the specific surgical indications: 1) degenerative spondylolisthesis/unstable lumbar stenosis; 2) synovial cysts; 3) adjacent segment disease (ASD). Medical records were reviewed to identify rates of complications and measures of functional outcome (ODI, low back pain VAS and modified Macnab scale) were collected both at baseline and at the follow-up visits. Wilcoxon signed-rank test was adopted to test for significant functional improvements.

Results

Significative clinical improvements were observed from baseline to follow-up regarding ODI and VAS scores. Overall rate of moderate and severe complications (according to Landriel-Ibañez scale) was 7.9%. Only 3.4% of patients with degenerative disease developed ASD requiring reoperations. Only one case of radicular deficit and one of device mobilization were reported. 2/4 cases of synovial cysts treated with unilateral fusions developed contralateral complications. 9 out of 16 (56.25%) patients who underwent long-term postoperative CT scans presented adequate degree of articular fusion.

Conclusion

FW technique is easy, safe, and effective. Its low rate of complications justifies its use for cases of mild lumbar instability.

Comparing Patient-Reported Outcomes, Complications, Readmissions, and Revisions in Posterior Lumbar Fusion With, Versus Without, an Interbody Device

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective analysis on prospectively collected data.

OBJECTIVES

To compare posterior lumbar fusions with versus without an interbody in: (1) Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) at 1 year and (2) postoperative complications, readmission, and reoperations.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Elective lumbar fusion is commonly used to treat various lumbar pathologies. Two common approaches for open posterior lumbar fusion include posterolateral fusion (PLF) alone without an interbody and with an interbody through techniques, like transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Whether fusion with or without an interbody leads to better outcomes remains an area of active research.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The Lumbar Module of the Quality Outcomes Database was queried for adults undergoing elective primary posterior lumbar fusion with or without an interbody. Covariates included demographic variables, comorbidities, primary spine diagnosis, operative variables, and baseline PROs, including Oswestry Disability Index, North American Spine Society satisfaction index, numeric rating scale-back/leg pain, and Euroqol 5-dimension. Outcomes included complications, reoperations, readmissions, return to work/activities, and PROs. Propensity score matching and linear regression modeling were used to estimate the average treatment effect on the treated to assess the impact of interbody use on patient outcomes.

RESULTS

After propensity matching, there were 1044 patients with interbody and 215 patients undergoing PLF. The average treatment effect on the treated analysis showed that having an interbody or not had no significant impact on any outcome of interest, including 30-day complications and reoperations, 3-month readmissions, 12-month return to work, and 12-month PROs.

CONCLUSION

There were no discernible differences in outcomes between patients undergoing PLF alone versus with an interbody in elective posterior lumbar fusion. These results add to the growing body of evidence that posterior lumbar fusions with and without an interbody seem to have similar outcomes up to 1 year postoperatively when treating degenerative lumbar spine conditions.

Novel Use of Bilateral Prone Transpsoas Approach for the Treatment of Transforaminal Interbody Fusion Pseudarthrosis and Interbody Cage Subsidence

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Pseudarthrosis is a complication after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) that leads to recurrent symptoms and potential revision surgery. Subsidence of the interbody adds to the complexity of surgical revision. In addition, we report a novel technique for the treatment of TLIF pseudarthrosis with subsidence and propose an approach algorithm for TLIF cage removal.

METHODS

Cases of reoperation for TLIF pseudarthrosis were reviewed. We report a novel technique using a bilateral prone transpsoas (PTP) approach to remove a subsided TLIF cage and place a new lateral cage. An approach algorithm was developed based on the experience of TLIF cage removal. The patient was placed in the prone position with somatosensory evoked potential and electromyography monitoring. A PTP retractor was placed using standard techniques on the ipsilateral side of the previous TLIF. After the discectomy, the subsided TLIF cage was visualized but unable to be removed. The initial dilator was closed, and a second PTP retractor was placed on the contralateral side. After annulotomy and discectomy to circumferentially isolate the subsided cage, a box cutter was used to push and mobilize the TLIF cage from this contralateral side, which could then be pulled out from the ipsilateral side. A standard lateral interbody cage was then placed.

RESULTS

Retractor time was less than 10 minutes on each side. The patient's symptoms resolved postoperatively. We review illustrative cases of various approaches for TLIF cage removal spanning the lumbosacral spine and recommend an operative approach based on the lumbar level, degree of subsidence, and mobility of the interbody.

CONCLUSION

Bilateral PTP retractors for TLIF cage removal may be effectively used in cases of pseudarthrosis with severe cage subsidence. Careful consideration of various factors, including patient surgical history, body habitus, and intraoperative findings, is essential in determining the appropriate treatment for these complex cases.

Radiologic and Clinical Evaluation of Posterolateral Versus Transforaminal Interbody Fusion in Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective is to compare foraminal height (FH) and disk height (DH) differences in posterolateral (PLF) and transforaminal interbody fusions (TLIFs) and secondarily correlate these measurements with patient-reported outcomes.

BACKGROUND

The impact FH has on patient outcomes in degenerative lumbar spinal fusion surgery is unknown. Postoperative FH change and how it relates to patient-reported outcomes in posteriorly based procedures has not been well evaluated.

METHODS

A retrospective review of a subset of patients from a prospective cohort from the Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network was undertaken. Radiographic assessment preoperatively, at 3 months and 1 year, with standing lumbar spine radiographs were completed. FH and DH were recorded at each time interval, differences between groups were compared, and correlations with patient-reported outcomes were assessed.

RESULTS

One hundred nine patients were included (23 PLF and 86 TLIF). At 3-month follow-up, the change in FH was greater in the TLIF group (mean difference =2.3; 95% CI: 0.8-3.5, P=0.002). The change in FH remained significantly different at 12 months (mean difference=1.6, 95% CI: 0.2, 3.0 mm, P=0.028). The change in DH was greater in the TLIF group, with a mean difference between groups of 4.1 mm (95% CI: 2.5, 5.7, P<0.001) and 3.6 mm (95% CI: 2.0, 5.3, P<0.001). A positive change in FH correlated with less back pain, less disability, and improved physical function in the TLIF group (P<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients treated with PLF lost FH over time. An increased difference in FH at 1 year was associated with improved function and less back pain in the TLIF group.

Does the Number of Interbody Devices Affect the Fusion Outcome in Short-Segment Posterior Lumbar Fusion?

INTRODUCTION

Interbody devices (IBDs) have been shown to improve outcomes when used in posterior lumbar fusion (PLF) surgery; however,the exact extent of their clinical benefit remains a current topic of interest. Our primary objective in this study was to identify whether the use of an IBD at every level of fusion construct would affect fusion outcomes such as adjacent segment pathology (ASP) and pseudarthrosis after one- to three-level PLF surgery.

METHODS

This was a single-institution retrospective study. We studied the association of factors such as smoking status, BMI, gender, age, and number of IBDs on the development of ASP and pseudarthrosis. To study the effect of independent variables on ASP and pseudoarthrosis, univariate and multivariate regression analyses were used.

RESULTS

The study included 2,061 patients with a history of posterior lumbar fusion who were identified and reviewed. Among these, 363 patients met our inclusion criteria; 247 patients had a minimum follow-up of six months and were finally included in the study. The median follow-up was 30 months. Among the 247 patients, 105 (42.5%) and 24 (9.7%) experienced ASP and pseudarthrosis, respectively. Gender and use of IBD significantly affected the presence of pseudarthrosis (with a higher rate in males and those without any IBDs). Gender, age, BMI, and use of IBDs did not affect ASP. Moreover, using an IBD at each fused level reduced the pseudarthrosis rate significantly compared to when IBDs were not used at all levels (7.3% vs. 27.6%, p <0.001), while there was no significant difference in the rate of ASP (43.6% vs. 34.5%, p = 0.35).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients undergoing one- to three-level PLF surgery, the use of an IBD at all levels of the fusion construct significantly reduces the rate of pseudarthrosis. There was no significant correlation between the rates of ASP. Studies with a larger sample size and a longer follow-up time are suggested to validate our results for pseudoarthrosis and ASP. Our results suggest the use of an IBD per fusion level in short-segment PLF surgeries.

Evaluation of the Clinical and Radiographic Degenerative Spondylolisthesis (CARDS) classification system as a guide to surgical technique selection

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

The role of fusion in degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) is controversial. The Clinical and Radiographic Degenerative Spondylolisthesis (CARDS) classification system was developed to assist surgeons in surgical technique selection based on individual patient characteristics. This system has not been clinically validated as a guide to surgical technique selection.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to determine if outcomes vary with different surgical techniques across the CARDS categories.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

Prospective cohort study performed at one Swiss and one American spine center.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Five hundred eight patients with DS undergoing surgical treatment.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Core Outcomes Measure Index (COMI) at 3 months and 12 months postoperatively.

METHODS

Patients undergoing surgery for DS were enrolled at 2 institutions and classified according to the CARDS system using dynamic radiographs. The Core Outcome Measure Index (COMI) was completed preoperatively, and 3 and 12 months postoperatively. Surgical technique was classified as uninstrumented (decompression alone or decompression with uninstrumented fusion) or instrumented (decompression with pedicle screw instrumentation with or without interbody fusion). Unadjusted analyses and mixed effect models compared COMI scores between the two surgery technique groups (uninstrumented vs instrumented), stratified by CARDS category over time. Reoperation rates were also compared between the surgery technique groups stratified by CARDS category. Partial funding was given through NASS grant for clinical research.

RESULTS

Five hundred five out of 508 patients enrolled in the study had sufficient data to be classified according to CARDS. Seven percent were classified as CARDS A, 28% as CARDS B, 48% as CARDS C, and 17% as CARDS D (CARDS A most "stable," CARDS D least "stable"). One hundred and thirty-three patients (26%) underwent decompression alone, 30 (6%) underwent decompression and uninstrumented fusion, 42 (8%) underwent decompression and posterolateral instrumented fusion, and 303 (60%) underwent decompression with posterolateral and interbody instrumented fusion. Patients in the least "stable" categories tended to be less likely to be treated with an uninstrumented technique (CARDS D 19% vs 32% for the other categories, p=.10). There were no significant differences in 3 or 12-month COMI scores between surgical technique groups stratified by CARDS category in the unadjusted or adjusted analyses. In the unadjusted analyses, there was a trend towards less improvement in 12-month COMI change score in the CARDS D patients in the uninstrumented group compared to the instrumented group (-2.7 vs -4.1, p=.10). Reoperation rates were not significantly different between the surgical technique groups stratified by CARDS category.

CONCLUSIONS

In general, outcomes for uninstrumented and instrumented surgical techniques were similar across the CARDS categories. Surgeons likely took factors included in CARDS into account during surgical technique selection. This resulted in a low number of CARDS D (n=15) patients being treated with uninstrumented techniques, which limited the statistical power of this analysis. As such, this study does not validate CARDS as a useful classification system for surgical technique selection in DS.

Fusion's Location and Quality within the Fixated Segment Following Transforaminal Interbody Fusion (TLIF)

Transforaminal interbody fusion (TLIF) has gained increased popularity over recent decades and is being employed as an established surgical treatment for several lumbar spine pathologies, including degenerative spondylosis, spondylolisthesis, infection, tumor and some cases of recurrent disc herniation. Despite the seemingly acceptable fusion rates after TLIF (up to 94%), the literature is still limited regarding the specific location and quality of fusion inside the fixated segment. In this single-institution, retrospective population-based study, we evaluated all post-operative computed tomography (CT) of patients who underwent TLIF surgery at a medium-sized medical center between 2010 and 2020. All CT studies were performed at a minimum of 1 year following the surgery, with a median of 2 years. Each CT study was evaluated for post-operative fusion, specifically in the posterolateral and intervertebral body areas. The fusion's quality was determined and classified in each area according to Lee's criteria, as follows: (1) definitive fusion: definitive bony trabecular bridging across the graft host interface; (2) probable fusion: no definitive bony trabecular crossing but with no gap at the graft host interface; (3) possible arthrosis: no bony trabecular crossing with identifiable gap at the graft host interface; (4) definite pseudarthrosis: no traversing trabecular bone with definitive gap. A total of 48 patients were included in this study. The median age was 55.6 years (SD ± 15.4). The median time from surgery to post-operative CT was 2 years (range: 1-10). Full definitive fusion in both posterolateral and intervertebral areas was observed in 48% of patients, and 92% showed definitive fusion in at least one area (either posterolateral or intervertebral body area). When comparing the posterolateral and the intervertebral area fusion rates, a significantly higher definitive fusion rate was observed in the posterolateral area as compared to the intervertebral body area in the long term follow-up (92% vs. 52%, p < 0.001). In the multivariable analysis, accounting for several confounding factors, including the number of fixated segments and cage size, the results remained statistically significant (p = 0.048). In conclusion, a significantly higher definitive fusion rate at the posterolateral area compared to the intervertebral body area following TLIF surgery was found. Surgeons are encouraged to employ bone augmentation material in the posterolateral area (as the primary site of fusion) when performing TLIF surgery.

Comparative Outcome Data Using Different Techniques for Posterior Lumbar Fusion: A Large Single-Center Study

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective single-center study.

PURPOSE

This study aims to evaluate perioperative and intermediate-term clinical outcomes of patients undergoing different lumbar fusion techniques.

OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE

Various open and minimally invasive techniques for lumbar fusion are available, but previous studies comparing lumbar fusion techniques have heterogeneous data, making interpretation challenging.

METHODS

Between 2011 and 2018, data from 447 consecutive patients undergoing one/two-level lumbar fusion were analyzed. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) with bilateral muscle strip or Wiltse approach, open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and minimally invasive TLIF, and posterolateral fusion only were among the surgical techniques used. Core outcomes measure index (COMI) questionnaires were distributed before surgery and at 3 months, 1 year, and 2 years postoperatively to establish patient selfreported outcome measures. Demographic data (age, gender, and body mass index [BMI]) for each patient were also collected in addition to surgical indication, previous operative history, perioperative outcomes, and complications, and whether later revision surgery was required. Pearson's chi-square test, Kruskal-Wallis test, repeated measure mixed-effects models, and ordinal logistic regression were used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

Postoperative COMI scores improved across all procedures compared with pre-surgery (p<0.001). There was no significant difference between different postoperative COMI scores. Significant predictors of higher postoperative COMI score included higher pretreatment COMI score (p≤0.001), previous surgery (p≤0.04), younger age (p≤0.05), higher BMI (p≤0.005), and the indications of lytic spondylolisthesis (p=0.02) and degenerative disc disease (p<0.001). Patients undergoing minimally invasive TLIF had a significantly shorter post-surgery stay than patients undergoing open PLIF (Kruskal-Wallis test, p=0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

At 2 years postoperatively, there was no significant difference in clinical outcomes between open and minimally invasive techniques. These findings suggest that the main determinant of surgical approach should be surgeon preference and training.

Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Versus Posterolateral Fusion Alone in the Treatment of Grade 1 Degenerative Spondylolisthesis

BACKGROUND

Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and posterolateral fusion (PLF) alone are two operations performed to treat degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. To date, it is unclear which operation leads to better outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To compare TLIF vs PLF alone regarding long-term reoperation rates, complications, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in patients with degenerative grade 1 spondylolisthesis.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study using prospectively collected data between October 2010 and May 2021 was undertaken. Inclusion criteria were patients aged 18 years or older with grade 1 degenerative spondylolisthesis undergoing elective, single-level, open posterior lumbar decompression and instrumented fusion with ≥1-year follow-up. The primary exposure was presence of TLIF vs PLF without interbody fusion. The primary outcome was reoperation. Secondary outcomes included complications, readmission, discharge disposition, return to work, and PROMs at 3 and 12 months postoperatively, including Numeric Rating Scale-Back/Leg and Oswestry Disability Index. Minimum clinically important difference of PROMs was set at 30% improvement from baseline.

RESULTS

Of 546 patients, 373 (68.3%) underwent TLIF and 173 underwent (31.7%) PLF. Median follow-up was 6.1 years (IQR = 3.6-9.0), with 339 (62.1%) >5-year follow-up. Multivariable logistic regression showed that patients undergoing TLIF had a lower odds of reoperation compared with PLF alone (odds ratio = 0.23, 95% CI = 0.54-0.99, P = .048). Among patients with >5-year follow-up, the same trend was seen (odds ratio = 0.15, 95% CI = 0.03-0.95, P = .045). No differences were observed in 90-day complications ( P = .487) and readmission rates ( P = .230) or minimum clinically important difference PROMs.

CONCLUSION

In a retrospective cohort study from a prospectively maintained registry, patients with grade 1 degenerative spondylolisthesis undergoing TLIF had significantly lower long-term reoperation rates than those undergoing PLF.

Preservation of Motion in Spine Surgery

The number of spinal procedures and spinal fusions continues to grow. Although fusion procedures have a high success rate, they have inherent risks such as pseudarthrosis and adjacent segment disease. New innovations in spine techniques have sought to eliminate these complications by preserving motion in the spinal column. Several techniques and devices have been developed in the cervical and lumbar spine including cervical laminoplasty, cervical disk ADA, posterior lumbar motion preservation devices, and lumbar disk ADA. In this review, advantages and disadvantages of each technique will be discussed.

The Use of Dual Direction Expandable Titanium Cage With Biportal Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Technical Consideration With Preliminary Results

Objective: Expandable cage technology has emerged for lumbar interbody fusion to restore intervertebral disc space height and alignment through a narrow surgical corridor. The purpose of this study is to present the technique of biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) using dual direction expandable cage and provide early clinical results.Methods: We performed the biportal endoscopic TLIF using a dual direction expandable titanium cage for height restoration and a larger footprint in 10 patients. Clinical parameters including Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), visual analogue scale (VAS), and complications were retrospectively analyzed. Also, we investigated radiologic parameters using preoperative and postoperative x-ray images.Results: We successfully inserted dual direction expandable cages during biportal endoscopic TLIF. There was no significant subsidence or collapse of the expandable cages during the 6-month follow-up period. Lumbar lordosis and disc height were significantly increased after surgery. ODI and VAS scores were significantly improved at 6 months after surgery.Conclusion: In this report, we describe the first use of a dual direction expandable interbody TLIF cage that expands in both width and height in biportal endoscopic TLIF surgery. Early clinical and radiographic outcomes of this TLIF technique may be favorable in early 6-month follow-up.

Murine models of posterolateral spinal fusion: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Rodent models are commonly used experimentally to assess treatment effectiveness in spinal fusion. Certain factors are associated with better fusion rates. The objectives of the present study were to report the protocols most frequently used, to evaluate factors known to positively influence fusion rate, and to identify new factors.

METHOD

A systematic literature search of PubMed and Web of Science found 139 experimental studies of posterolateral lumbar spinal fusion in rodent models. Data for level and location of fusion, animal strain, sex, weight and age, graft, decortication, fusion assessment and fusion and mortality rates were collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

The standard murine model for spinal fusion was male Sprague Dawley rats of 295g weight and 13 weeks' age, using decortication, with L4-L5 as fusion level. The last two criteria were associated with significantly better fusion rates. On manual palpation, the overall mean fusion rate in rats was 58% and the autograft mean fusion rate was 61%. Most studies evaluated fusion as a binary on manual palpation, and only a few used CT and histology. Average mortality was 3.03% in rats and 1.56% in mice.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest using a rat model, younger than 10 weeks and weighing more than 300 grams on the day of surgery, to optimize fusion rates, with decortication before grafting and fusing the L4-L5 level.

In Single-Level, Open, Posterior Lumbar Fusion, Does Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion or Posterolateral Fusion Lead to Better Outcomes?

BACKGROUND

Two common approaches for open, one-level, posterior lumbar fusions include transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and posterolateral fusion (PLF) alone without an interbody.

OBJECTIVE

To compare TLIF vs PLF alone in (1) discharge disposition, (2) return to work (RTW), and (3) patient-reported outcomes (PROs).

METHODS

A single-center, retrospective cohort study was undertaken between October 2010 and May 2021, all with a 1-year follow-up and excluding patients with isthmic spondylolisthesis. Minimum clinically important difference for each PRO was used, which included Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Logistic/linear regression controlled for age, body mass index, disc height, flexion-extension movement, amount of movement on flexion-extension, and spondylolisthesis grade.

RESULTS

Of 850 patients undergoing open, 1-level, posterior lumbar fusion, 591 (69.5%) underwent a TLIF and 259 (30.5%) underwent a PLF alone. Patients undergoing TLIF were younger (59.0 ± 11.3 vs 63.3 ± 12.6, P < .001), had higher body mass index (31.3 ± 6.6 vs 30.2 ± 12.6, P = .019), and more often had private insurance (50.3% vs 39.0%, P < .001). Regarding discharge disposition, no significance was found in multivariate regression (odds ratio = 2.07, 95% CI = 0.39-10.82, P = .385) with similar RTW between TLIF and PLF alone (80.8% vs 80.4%, P = .645) (odds ratio = 1.15, 95% CI = 0.19-6.81, P = .873). Regarding PROs, patients undergoing a TLIF had higher preoperative (6.7 ± 2.3 vs 6.4 ± 2.5, P = .046) and 3-month NRS-back pain (3.4 ± 2.6 vs 2.9 ± 2.5, P = .036), with similar 12-month NRS-back pain. Regarding NRS-leg pain, no differences were observed preoperatively ( P = .532) and at 3 months ( P = .808). No other significant differences were observed in ODI.

CONCLUSION

TLIF patients had slightly higher NRS-back pain at baseline and 3 months, but similar NRS-leg pain, despite the added risk of placing an interbody. No differences were seen in discharge disposition, RTW, and 12-month pain scores and ODI.

Successful outcomes of unilateral vs bilateral pedicle screw fixation for lumbar interbody fusion: A meta-analysis with evidence grading

BACKGROUND

Whether it’s better to adopt unilateral pedicle screw (UPS) fixation or to use bilateral pedicle screw (BPS) one for lumbar degenerative diseases is still controversially undetermined.

AIM

To make a comparison between UPS and BPS fixation as to how they work efficaciously and safely in patients suffering from lumbar degenerative diseases.

METHODS

We have searched a lot in the databases through 2020 with index terms such as “unilateral pedicle screw fixation” and “bilateral pedicle screw fixation.” Only randomized controlled trials and some prospective cohort studies could be found, yielding 15 studies. The intervention was unilateral pedicle screw fixation; Primarily We’ve got outcomes of complications and fusion rates. Secondarily, we’ve achieved outcomes regarding total blood loss, operative time, as well as length of stay. Softwares were installed and utilized for subgroup analysis, analyzing forest plots, sensitivity, heterogeneity, forest plots, publication bias, and risk of bias.

RESULTS

Fifteen previous cases of study including 992 participants have been involved in our meta-analysis. UPS had slightly lower effects on fusion rate [relative risk (RR) = 0.949, 95%CI: 0.910 to 0.990, P = 0.015], which contributed mostly to this meta-analysis, and similar complication rates (RR = 1.140, 95%CI: 0.792 to 1.640, P = 0.481), Δ visual analog scale [standard mean difference (SMD) = 0.178, 95%CI: -0.021 to 0.378, P = 0.080], and Δ Oswestry disability index (SMD = -0.254, 95%CI: -0.820 to 0.329, P = 0.402). In contrast, an obvious difference has been observed in Δ Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score (SMD = 0.305, 95%CI: 0.046 to 0.563, P = 0.021), total blood loss (SMD = -1.586, 95%CI: -2.182 to -0.990, P = 0.000), operation time (SMD = -2.831, 95%CI: -3.753 to -1.909, P = 0.000), and length of hospital stay (SMD = -0.614, 95%CI: -1.050 to -0.179, P = 0.006).

CONCLUSION

Bilateral fixation is more effective than unilateral fixation regarding fusion rate after lumbar interbody fusion. However, JOA, operation time, total blood loss, as well as length of stay were improved for unilateral fixation.

Indirect Effects on Adjacent Segments After Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion

OBJECTIVE

To compare radiographic parameters at adjacent segments before and after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and assess relationships of radiographic changes between adjacent segments and fused level.

METHODS

Study participants included 44 patients who underwent minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion at L4-5 level. Radiographic parameters at adjacent segments (L3-4 and L5-S1) and clinical parameters were reviewed.

RESULTS

Postoperative dural sac area significantly increased in upper (mean change 8.05 mm², P < 0.001) and lower (14.08 mm², P < 0.001) adjacent segments. Significant increases in SAPD were seen in upper (0.85 mm, P < 0.001) and lower (0.66 mm, P < 0.001) adjacent segments. Ligamentum flavum thickness significantly decreased in lower adjacent segments (-0.37 mm, P = 0.006). For every 1-mm increase in fused level disc height, lower SAPD increased 0.22 mm (P = 0.04), and lower segmental angle increased 0.91° (P = 0.04). For every 1° increase in fused level segmental angle, lower dural sac area increased 1.25 mm² (P = 0.03), and lower SAPD increased 0.12 mm (P = 0.003). The 6- and 12-month postoperative visual analog scale back and leg scores significantly decreased compared with preoperatively (back: mean change -5.98 and -6.05, P < 0.001; leg: -6.86 and -6.89, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Performing minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion at the symptomatic index level does not worsen canal dimension of asymptomatic adjacent segments during short-term follow-up. It might be possible to improve canal dimension at adjacent segments by changing disc height or lordosis at the fused level via adjusting size and position of the interbody cage.

Lumbar Lordosis Correction With Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Adult Spinal Deformity Patients with Minimum 2-Year Follow-up

OBJECTIVE

To determine the degree of lumbar lordosis (LL) correction possible via transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) in adult spinal deformity patients.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review identified patients ≥18 years of age with severe positive sagittal balance defined by the SRS-Schwab classification: pelvic incidence to LL mismatch >20°, sagittal vertical axis >9.5cm, and/or pelvic tilt >30°. All patients had surgery between 2013 to 2018 with a TLIF at L4-L5 and/or L5-S1 by the senior author (J.L.F.) with ≥2-years follow-up.

RESULTS

Sixty-one patients (18 men, 43 women) with 85 TLIFs were included with an average age of 66 years and average follow-up of 50 months. Average lumbar lordosis (L1-S1) improved from 27° preoperative to 48° postoperative and 45° at 2-year follow-up (P < 0.001). Average segmental lordosis at L4-L5 TLIF sites improved from 3° preoperative to 13° postoperative and persisted at 2-year follow-up (P < 0.001). Segmental lordosis at L5-S1 TLIF sites improved from 7° preoperative to 21° postoperative and 20° at 2-year follow-up (P < 0.001). Seventeen of the TLIFs (20%) had >20° of segmental lordosis improvement at long-term follow-up. The rate of revision surgery for pseudoarthrosis at the TLIF level was 5%.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant lordosis correction can be achieved through an open TLIF in patients with severe positive sagittal balance when utilizing meticulous deformity correction techniques, avoiding the added morbidity of an anterior approach or a 3-column osteotomy.

Postoperative Opioid Use Following Single-Level Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Compared with Posterolateral Lumbar Fusion

OBJECTIVE

To compare postoperative opioid morphine milligram equivalents (MME) prescriptions for opioid-naïve patients undergoing single-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) versus posterolateral lumbar fusion (PLF) and total postoperative MME prescribed based on operative duration.

METHODS

Patients undergoing single-level TLIF or PLF from September 2017 to June 2020 were identified from a single institution. Patients were first grouped based on procedure type (TLIF or PLF) and subsequently regrouped based on median operative duration. Statistical tests compared patient demographics and opioid prescription data between groups. Multivariate regressions were performed to control for demographics, operative time, and procedure type.

RESULTS

Of 345 patients undergoing single-level PLF or TLIF, 174 (50.4%) were opioid-naïve; 101 opioid-naïve patients (58.0%) underwent PLF and 73 (42.0%) underwent TLIF. Patients undergoing TLIF received more opioid prescriptions (1.99 vs. 1.26, P < 0.001) and total MME (91.2 vs. 66.8, P = 0.002). After regrouping patients based on operative duration, independent of procedure type, there were no differences in postoperative opioid prescriptions, and Spearman rank correlation coefficient between total MME and operative duration was r = 0.014. Multivariate analysis identified TLIF as an independent predictor of increased postoperative opioid prescriptions (β = 0.64, P < 0.001), prescribers (β = 0.49, P = 0.003), and MME (β = 24.4, P = 0.030).

CONCLUSIONS

Opioid-naïve patients undergoing single-level TLIF receive a greater number of postoperative opioids than patients undergoing single-level PLF, and TLIF was an independent predictor of increased postoperative opioid prescribers, prescribers, and MME. There were no differences in postoperative opioid prescriptions when assessing patients based on operative duration.

Finite element analysis after rod fracture of the spinal hybrid elastic rod system

Background

The spinal hybrid elastic (SHE) rod dynamic stabilization system can provide sufficient spine support and less adjacent segment stress. This study aimed to investigate the biomechanical effects after the internal fracture of SHE rods using finite element analysis.

Methods

A three-dimensional nonlinear finite element model was developed. The SHE rod comprises an inner nitinol stick (NS) and an outer polycarbonate urethane (PCU) shell (PS). The fracture was set at the caudal third portion of the NS, where the maximum stress occurred. The resultant intervertebral range of motion (ROM), intervertebral disc stress, facet joint contact force, screw stress, NS stress, and PCU stress were analyzed.

Results

When compared with the intact spine model, the overall trend was that the ROM, intervertebral disc stress, and facet joint force decreased in the implanted level and increased in the adjacent level. When compared with the Ns-I, the trend in the Ns-F decreased and remained nearly half effect. Except for torsion, the PS stress of the Ns-F increased because of the sharing of NS stress after the NS fracture.

Conclusions

The study concluded the biomechanical effects still afford nearly sufficient spine support and gentle adjacent segment stress after rod fracture in a worst-case scenario of the thinnest PS of the SHE rod system.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12891-022-05768-x.

Spondylolisthesis and Idiopathic Sarcopenia Treated With Minimally Invasive Surgery for Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Case Study and Literature Review

Sarcopenia is a muscle-wasting disease common among older adults. The condition has been associated with adverse perioperative and postoperative outcomes following spinal surgery. The combination of this muscle-wasting syndrome and spondylolisthesis and how we approached the case makes it a compelling study for surgeons attempting to treat this patient population more effectively. In this case study, we examine a 76-year-old male patient with chronic sarcopenia who needed transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) surgery for his grade 1 L4-5 spondylolisthesis, L4-5 degenerative disc disease, bilateral facet effusions and lumbosacral radiculopathy with active and chronic denervation. He consulted our neurosurgeon for his back pain and left lower extremity paresthesia. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) showed degenerative disc disease with bilateral facet effusion in multiple levels of the lumbar spine as well as broad disc bulge in L5-S1. Due to the patient’s past medical history of muscle wasting disease, a muscle biopsy of the left quadriceps was performed and revealed rare denervated fibers indicative of sarcopenia. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF) was performed as the most optimal surgical method for this condition. The patient experienced a massive decline in his VAS score from 9/10 to 0/10 two months from surgery, reflecting the fast wound healing process and recovery. Postoperatively, the AP X-ray of the lumbar spine showed dextroscoliosis and stable L4/5 TLIF instrumentation. The surgeon provided the patient guidance regarding his nutrition and exercise to maximize the treatment. This case illustrates the employment of the minimally invasive surgery (MIS) approach to diminish complications and tissue trauma of patients with sarcopenia and spondylolisthesis who are undergoing lumbar spine surgery.

Better Functional Recovery After Single-Level Compared With Two-Level Posterolateral Lumbar Fusion

Background

Multiple studies describe the outcomes of patients undergoing single-level and multilevel posterolateral lumbar fusion (PLF). However, a comparison of outcomes between single-level and two-level PLF is lacking. The aim of this prospective cohort study was to compare outcomes between single-level and two-level instrumented PLF.

Methods

A total of 42 patients were enrolled at nine US centers between October 2015 and June 2017. Data included radiologic outcomes, visual analog scale (VAS) Back and Leg Pain, disability per the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and health-related quality of life (QoL) per 36-Item Short Form Survey version 2.0 (SF-36v2) at six weeks and three, six, 12, and 24 months.

Results

Twelve-month and 24-month follow-ups were completed by 38 (90.5%) and 32 (76.2%) subjects, respectively. The average age was 67 years, and 54.8% were female. Twenty-six received single-level PLF, and 16 received two-level PLF. In the single-level group, there was one reoperation, two postoperative infections, and one dural tear. In the two-level group, there was one postoperative infection. The surgeon computed tomography (CT)-based evaluation of fusion rate was 67.6% (25/37) at 12-month follow-up and 94.1% (32/34) at 24-month follow-up. The third-party evaluation of fusion rate was 52.8% (19/36) at six months, 81.1% (30/37) at 12 months, and 86.5% (32/37) at 24 months. There was a tendency toward a higher fusion rate in single-level compared with two-level PLF. The ODI, SF-36v2 Mental Component Score (MCS), and VAS Back Pain and Leg Pain outcomes improved by the first follow-up visit in both the single-level and two-level groups. Improvement in the ODI was 5.86 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.03-11.69) points greater in the single-level group compared with the two-level group.

Conclusions

Compared with the two-level PLF subjects, single-level PLF subjects had better functional outcomes and reported higher satisfaction with the outcome of surgery but showed similar fusion, pain, and generic health-related quality of life outcomes. Both single-level and two-level PLF subjects demonstrated high fusion rates in association with improvements in pain, functional, and quality of life outcomes, as well as high satisfaction levels.

Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with a silicon nitride cage demonstrates early radiographic fusion

BACKGROUND

Degeneration of the lumbar spine is common in aging adults and reflects a significant morbidity burden in this population. In selected patients that prove unresponsive to non-surgical treatment, posterior lumbar fusion (PLF) surgery, with or without adjunctive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) can relieve pain and improve function. We describe here the radiographic fusion rates for PLF versus TLIF, using an intervertebral spinal cage made of silicon nitride ceramic (chemical formula Si₃N₄).

METHODS

This retrospective cohort analysis enrolled 99 patients from August 2013 to January 2017; 17 had undergone PLF at 24 levels, while 82 had undergone TLIF at 104 levels. All operations were performed by a single surgeon at one institution. Radiographic and clinical outcomes were compared between PLF and TLIF at 2 and 6 weeks and then at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months.

RESULTS

TLIF patients fused at higher rates compared to PLF at the 3-month (38.5% vs. 8.3%, P=0.006), 6-month (78.7% vs. 35.0%, P<0.001) and 12-month time periods (97.9% vs. 81.3%, P=0.018), with no difference at 24 months (100% vs. 94.4%, P=0.102). Index level segmental motion was significantly less and intervertebral disc height was improved in TLIF over PLF at all follow up intervals. Foraminal height was only greater in early follow up periods (2 weeks, 6 weeks and 3 months). TLIF patients experienced lover rates of PI-LL mismatch which was maintained across long term follow-up. Pelvic tilt was lower following TLIF compared to PLF, with no differences in complication rates between study groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our retrospective series demonstrated that TLIF performed with silicon nitride interbody cages led to earlier radiographic fusion, greater restoration of disc and foraminal height, increased segmental rigidity and improved sagittal alignment when compared to PLF alone.

Comparison between modified facet joint fusion and posterolateral fusion for the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases: a retrospective study

Objective

To investigate the safety and effectiveness of modified facet joint fusion in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases and compare them with those of posterolateral fusion.

Methods

A total of 77 adult patients with lumbar degenerative disease diagnosed from January 2017 to February 2019 were considered for the present retrospective, nonrandomized, and controlled study. The patients were divided into two groups according to the fusion technique used during the surgery: the posterolateral fusion (PLF) group (n = 42) and the modified facet joint fusion (MFF) group (n = 35). The fusion rate, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score, visual analog scale (VAS) score for back pain and leg pain, Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score, European Quality of Life–5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) score, length of hospital stay, length of operation, intraoperative blood loss, cost of hospitalization, complications and reoperations were compared between the 2 groups.

Results

All patients underwent a successful surgery, and all were followed up. No significant differences were found in age, sex, BMI, length of hospital stay, length of operation or cost of hospitalization. There were no significant differences in the preoperative or postoperative ODI or in the VAS, JOA, and EQ-5D scores between the MFF and PLF groups. However, the fusion rate of MFF group was higher than that of the PLF group (P < 0.05). What’s more, the MFF group had less intraoperative blood loss than the PLF group (P < 0.05). Complications related to iatrogenic nerve injury, vascular injury, epidural hematoma, intravertebral infection, and internal fixation did not occur in either group. None of the patients required reoperation.

Conclusions

Modified facet joint fusion is safe and efficient in the treatment of lumbar degenerative disease. The fusion rate of MFF was higher than PLF. The intraoperative blood loss of MFF was less than that of PLF. In addition, the therapeutic effect of MFF was not worse than that of PLF. Therefore, the MFF technique can be promoted in clinical treatment.

Subaxial lateral mass prosthesis for posterior reconstruction of cervical spine

PURPOSE

To obtain the relevant morphometry of the lateral mass of the subaxial cervical spine (C3-C7) and to design a series of lateral mass prostheses for the posterior reconstruction of the stability of cervical spine.

METHODS

The computed tomography (CT) scans of healthy volunteers were obtained. RadiAnt DICOM Viewer software (Version 2020.1, Medixant, Poland) was used to measure the parameters of lateral mass, such as height, anteroposterior dimension (APD), mediolateral dimension (MLD) and facet joint angle. According to the parameters, a series of cervical lateral mass prostheses were designed. Cadaver experiment was conducted to demonstrate its feasibility.

RESULTS

23 volunteers with an average age of 30.1 ± 7.1 years were enrolled in this study. The height of lateral mass is 14.1 mm averagely. Facet joint angle, APD and MLD of lateral mass averaged 40.1 degrees, 11.2 mm and 12.18 mm, respectively. With these key data, a lateral mass prosthesis consists of a bone grafting column and a posterior fixation plate was designed. The column has a 4.0 mm radius, 41 degrees surface angle and adjustable height of 13, 15, or 17 mm. In the cadaver experiment, the grafting column could function as a supporting structure between adjacent facets, and it would not violate exiting nerve root (NR) or vertebral artery (VA).

CONCLUSION

This study provided detailed morphology of the lateral mass of subaxial cervical spine. A series of subaxial cervical lateral mass prostheses were designed awaiting further clinical application.

Does change in focal lordosis after spinal fusion affect clinical outcomes in degenerative spondylolisthesis?

Study Design:

Retrospective cohort study.

Objective:

The objective of this study is to determine the effect of focal lordosis and global alignment and proportion (GAP) scores on patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) after posterior lumbar fusion for patients with 1- or 2-level lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS).

Summary of Background Data:

In patients with DS, improvements in spinopelvic parameters are believed to improve clinical outcomes. However, the effect of changing focal lordosis in patients with 1-or 2-level degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis is unclear.

Materials and Methods:

Postoperative spinopelvic parameters and perioperative focal lordosis changes were measured for 162 patients at a single academic center from January 2013 to December 2017. Patients were divided into three groups: >2° (lordotic group), between 2° and −2° (neutral group), and −2°° (kyphotic group). Patients were then reclassified based on GAP scores. Recovery ratios (RR) and the number of patients achieving the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) were calculated for PROMs. Standard descriptive statistics were reported for patient demographics and outcomes data. Multiple linear regression analysis controlled for confounders. Alpha was set at P < 0.05.

Results:

There was no significant association between change in focal lordosis and surgical complications including adjacent segment disease (P = 0.282), instrumentation failure (P = 0.196), pseudarthrosis (P = 0.623), or revision surgery (P = 0.424). In addition, the only PROM affected by change in focal lordosis was Mental Component Scores (ΔMCS-12) (lordotic = 2.5, neutral = 8.54, and kyphotic = 5.96, P = 0.017) and RR for MCS-12 (lordotic = 0.02, neutral = 0.14, kyphotic 0.10, P = 0.008). Linear regression analysis demonstrated focal lordosis was a predictor of decreased improvement in MCS-12 (β = −6.45 [−11.03- −1.83], P = 0.007). GAP scores suggested patients who were correctly proportioned had worse MCID compared to moderately disproportioned and severely disproportioned patients (P = 0.024).

Conclusions:

The change in focal lordosis not a significant predictor of change in PROMs for disability, pain, or physical function. Proportioned patients based on the GAP score had worse MCID for Oswestry Disability Index.

Level of Evidence:

III

Research progress on the biological modifications of implant materials in 3D printed intervertebral fusion cages

Anterior spine decompression and reconstruction with bone grafts and fusion is a routine spinal surgery. The intervertebral fusion cage can maintain intervertebral height and provide a bone graft window. Titanium fusion cages are the most widely used metal material in spinal clinical applications. However, there is a certain incidence of complications in clinical follow-ups, such as pseudoarticulation formation and implant displacement due to nonfusion of bone grafts in the cage. With the deepening research on metal materials, the properties of these materials have been developed from being biologically inert to having biological activity and biological functionalization, promoting adhesion, cell differentiation, and bone fusion. In addition, 3D printing, thin-film, active biological material, and 4D bioprinting technology are also being used in the biofunctionalization and intelligent advanced manufacturing processes of implant devices in the spine. This review focuses on the biofunctionalization of implant materials in 3D printed intervertebral fusion cages. The surface modifications of implant materials in metal endoscopy, material biocompatibility, and bioactive functionalizationare summarized. Furthermore, the prospects and challenges of the biofunctionalization of implant materials in spinal surgery are discussed. Fig.a.b.c.d.e.f.g As a pre-selected image for the cover, I really look forward to being selected. Special thanks to you for your comments.

Radiographic and clinical outcomes in one- and two-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions: a comparison of bullet versus banana cages

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to determine whether cage morphology influences clinical and radiographic outcomes following short-segment transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) procedures.

METHODS

The authors retrospectively reviewed one- and two-level TLIFs at a single tertiary care center between August 2012 and November 2019 with a minimum 1-year radiographic and clinical follow-up. Two cohorts were compared based on interbody cage morphology: steerable "banana" cage or straight "bullet" cage. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), radiographs, and complications were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 135 patients with 177 interbody levels were identified; 45 patients had 52 straight cages and 90 patients had 125 steerable cages. Segmental lordosis increased with steerable cages, while it decreased with straight cages (+3.8 ± 4.6 vs -1.9 ± 4.3, p < 0.001). Conversely, the mean segmental lordosis of adjacent lumbar levels decreased in the former group, while it increased in the latter group (-0.52 ± 1.9 vs +0.52 ± 2.1, p = 0.004). This reciprocal relationship results in global sagittal parameters, including pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis and lumbar distribution index, which did not change after surgery with either cage morphology. Multivariate analysis confirmed that steerable cage morphology, anterior cage positioning, and less preoperative index-level segmental lordosis were associated with greater improvement in index-level segmental lordosis. PROMs were improved after surgery with both cage types, and the degree of improvement did not differ between cohorts (p > 0.05). Perioperative and radiographic complications were similar between cohorts (p > 0.05). Overall reoperation rates, as well as reoperation rates for adjacent-segment disease within 2 years of surgery, were not significantly different between cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

Steerable cages are more likely to lie within the anterior disc space, thus increasing index-level segmental lordosis, which is accompanied by a reciprocal change in segmental alignment at the adjacent lumbar levels. The converse relationship occurs for straight cages, with a kyphotic change at the index levels and reciprocal lordosis occurring at adjacent levels.

A BMP/Activin A Chimera Induces Posterolateral Spine Fusion in Nonhuman Primates at Lower Concentrations Than BMP-2

BACKGROUND

Supraphysiologic bone morphogenetic protein (BMP)-2 concentrations are required to induce spinal fusion. In this study, a BMP-2/BMP-6/activin A chimera (BV-265), optimized for BMP receptor binding, delivered in a recombinant human collagen:CDHA [calcium-deficient hydroxyapatite] porous composite matrix (CM) or bovine collagen:CDHA granule porous composite matrix (PCM), engineered for optimal BV-265 retention and guided tissue repair, was compared with BMP-2 delivered in a bovine absorbable collagen sponge (ACS) wrapped around a MASTERGRAFT Matrix (MM) ceramic-collagen rod (ACS:MM) in a nonhuman primate noninstrumented posterolateral fusion (PLF) model.

METHODS

In vivo retention of 125I-labeled-BV-265/CM or PCM was compared with 125I-labeled-BMP-2/ACS or BMP-2/buffer in a rat muscle pouch model using scintigraphy. Noninstrumented PLF was performed by implanting CM, BV-265/CM, BV-265/PCM, or BMP-2/ACS:MM across L3-L4 and L5-L6 or L3-L4-L5 decorticated transverse processes in 26 monkeys. Computed tomography (CT) images were acquired at 0, 4, 8, 12, and 24 weeks after surgery, where applicable. Manual palpation, μCT (microcomputed tomography) or nCT (nanocomputed tomography), and histological analysis were performed following euthanasia.

RESULTS

Retention of 125I-labeled-BV-265/CM was greater than BV-265/PCM, followed by BMP-2/ACS and BMP-2/buffer. The CM, 0.43 mg/cm3 BMP-2/ACS:MM, and 0.05 mg/cm3 BV-265/CM failed to generate PLFs. The 0.15-mg/cm3 BV-265/CM or 0.075-mg/cm3 BV-265/PCM combinations were partially effective. The 0.25-mg/cm3 BV-265/CM and 0.15 and 0.3-mg/cm3 BV-265/PCM combinations generated successful 2-level PLFs at 12 and 24 weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

BV-265/CM or PCM can induce fusion in a challenging nonhuman primate noninstrumented PLF model at substantially lower concentrations than BMP-2/ACS:MM.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

BV-265/CM and PCM represent potential alternatives to induce PLF in humans at substantially lower concentrations than BMP-2/ACS:MM.

Decompression with or without Fusion in Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis

BACKGROUND

In patients with lumbar spinal stenosis and degenerative spondylolisthesis, it is uncertain whether decompression surgery alone is noninferior to decompression with instrumented fusion.

METHODS

We conducted an open-label, multicenter, noninferiority trial involving patients with symptomatic lumbar stenosis that had not responded to conservative management and who had single-level spondylolisthesis of 3 mm or more. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to undergo decompression surgery (decompression-alone group) or decompression surgery with instrumented fusion (fusion group). The primary outcome was a reduction of at least 30% in the score on the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI; range, 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating more impairment) during the 2 years after surgery, with a noninferiority margin of -15 percentage points. Secondary outcomes included the mean change in the ODI score as well as scores on the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire, leg and back pain, the duration of surgery and length of hospital stay, and reoperation within 2 years.

RESULTS

The mean age of patients was approximately 66 years. Approximately 75% of the patients had leg pain for more than a year, and more than 80% had back pain for more than a year. The mean change from baseline to 2 years in the ODI score was -20.6 in the decompression-alone group and -21.3 in the fusion group (mean difference, 0.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.8 to 4.3). In the modified intention-to-treat analysis, 95 of 133 patients (71.4%) in the decompression-alone group and 94 of 129 patients (72.9%) in the fusion group had a reduction of at least 30% in the ODI score (difference, -1.4 percentage points; 95% CI, -12.2 to 9.4), showing the noninferiority of decompression alone. In the per-protocol analysis, 80 of 106 patients (75.5%) and 83 of 110 patients (75.5%), respectively, had a reduction of at least 30% in the ODI score (difference, 0.0 percentage points; 95% CI, -11.4 to 11.4), showing noninferiority. The results for the secondary outcomes were generally in the same direction as those for the primary outcome. Successful fusion was achieved with certainty in 86 of 100 patients (86.0%) who had imaging available at 2 years. Reoperation was performed in 15 of 120 patients (12.5%) in the decompression-alone group and in 11 of 121 patients (9.1%) in the fusion group.

CONCLUSIONS

In this trial involving patients who underwent surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis, most of whom had symptoms for more than a year, decompression alone was noninferior to decompression with instrumented fusion over a period of 2 years. Reoperation occurred somewhat more often in the decompression-alone group than in the fusion group. (NORDSTEN-DS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02051374.).

Does Interbody Support at L5-S1 Matter in Long Fusions to the Pelvis?: A 5-year Analysis

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective review of prospectively collected data.

OBJECTIVE

To determine if the addition of L5-S1 interbody support in long fusion deformity constructs is associated with superior long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes. To compare the 5-year clinical and radiographic outcomes and complications between long fusion constructs with L5-S1 interbody support versus posterolateral fusion (PLF) alone.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Cadaveric biomechanical studies have suggested that an interbody fusion at L5-S1 is beneficial in long fusion constructs with sacropelvic fixation. However, there is limited data reflecting the superiority of interbody support augmentation in optimizing arthrodesis and deformity correction relative to PLF alone.

METHODS

Eighty-eight consecutive adults with spinal deformity who underwent at minimum T11-pelvis posterior pedicle screw instrumentation with 5-year follow-up were included. Two cohorts were compared based on technique used at the lumbosacral junction (L5-S1): (A) no interbody (PLF; n = 23), or (B) interbody support at L5-S1 (IB; n = 65). Radiographic measurements and clinical outcome measures were compared at multiple time points. Complications were recorded and compared.

RESULTS

No differences in baseline patient characteristics between cohorts. One nonunion occurred at L5-S1 in the PLF group (P = 0.091). Initial postop sagittal alignment was better in the IB group (PLF: 6.46 cm, IB: 2.48 cm, P = 0.007); however, this was not maintained over long-term follow-up. No significant differences in proximal junctional kyphosis (PLF: 7/23, IB: 9/65, P = 0.076). Proximal junctional failure was more frequent in the PLF group (PLF: 6/23, IB: 6/65, P = 0.043). No significant differences in complications were found. Both cohorts had improvement from baseline pain and functional scores.

CONCLUSION

There is no absolute long-term advantage for lumbar interbody support in adult spinal deformity patients undergoing spinal arthrodesis to the pelvis.Level of Evidence: 3.

Variation in surgical treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis in Canada: surgeon assessment of stability and impact on treatment

INTRODUCTION

Controversy exists regarding the optimal surgical treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DS). Not all DS patients are the same, and the degree to which inherent stability may dictate treatment is unknown. The purpose of this study was to determine the variability in surgical approach relative to surgeon classified stability. The secondary objective was to compare patient-reported outcomes (PROs) across different surgical techniques and grades of stability.

METHODS

Patients prospectively enrolled from eleven tertiary care institutions and followed from 2015 to 2019. The surgical technique was at the surgeon's discretion. Surgeons were asked to grade the degree of instability based on the degenerative spondylolisthesis instability classification system (DSIC). DSIC categorizes three different types (I-stable, II-potentially unstable, and III-unstable). One-year changes in PROs were compared between each group. Multivariable regression was used to identify any characteristics that explained variability in treatment.

RESULTS

There were 323 patients enrolled in this study. Surgeons' stability classification versus procedure [decompression alone (D)/decompression and posterolateral fusion (D-PL)/and decompression with posterior/transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (D-PLIF/TLIF)] were as follows: type I (n = 91): D-41%/D-PL-13%/D-PLIF/TLIF-46%; type II (n = 175): D-23%/D-PL-17%/D-PLIF/TLIF-60%; and type III (n = 57):(D-0%/D-PL-14%/D-PLIF/TLIF-86%). Type I patients undergoing D-PL had some improvements in EQ-5D and NRS versus those undergoing D-PLIF/TLIF but otherwise there were no other significant differences between groups. Regression analysis demonstrated advanced age (OR = 1.06, CI 1.02-10.12) and type I (OR = 2.61, CI 1.17-5.81) were associated with receiving decompression surgery alone.

CONCLUSIONS

There exists considerable variation in surgical management of DS in Canada. Given similar PROs in two of the three groups, there is potential to tailor surgical intervention and improve resource utilization.

Clinical and Radiographic Comparison Between Open Versus Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion With Bilateral Facetectomies

STUDY DESIGN

Age- and sex-matched cohort study.

OBJECTIVES

To compare outcomes after open versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) with bilateral facetectomies.

METHODS

We retrospectively compared patients who underwent single- or 2-level MIS-TLIF with an age- and sex-matched open-TLIF cohort. Surgical data was collected for operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), and drain use. Clinical outcomes included the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), length of stay (LOS), complications, and reoperations. Lumbar radiographs were measured for changes in global lumbar lordosis (LL) and segmental lordosis (SL).

RESULTS

Between 2016 and 2020, 38 MIS-TLIF patients were compared with 38 open-TLIF patients. No subfascial drain was used in the MIS-TLIF group (P < .001). The MIS-TLIF group had longer operative time (310.8 vs 276.5 minutes; P = .046) but less EBL (282.4 vs 420.8 mL; P = .007). LOS (P = .15), complication rates (P = .50), and revision rates (P = .17) were equivalent. VAS and ODI improved but did not differ between groups. In the open-TLIF group, LL and SL were restored or improved in 81.6% and 86.9% of cases, respectively. In the MIS-TLIF group, LL and SL were restored or improved in 86.8% and 97.4% of cases, respectively. There were no differences in changes in LL and SL between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with the age- and sex-matched open-TLIF cohort, patients undergoing MIS-TLIF had reduced EBL and subfascial drain use but increased operative time. There were no differences in complications, reoperations, or LOS. Both groups demonstrated improvement in VAS and ODI. MIS-TLIF with bilateral facetectomies provided equivalent improvements in global and segmental LL.

Lumbar Fusion for Spondylolisthesis: A Bayesian Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

STUDY DESIGN

This was a Bayesian network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to assess the comparative efficacies of the 5 most commonly used procedures for spondylolisthesis in a Bayesian network meta-analysis.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND

Lumbar fusion procedures are the backbone for the surgical treatment of spondylolisthesis. However, the current evidence has only considered head-to-head comparisons of different fusion procedures and failed to definitively favor one fusion procedure over another.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A Bayesian random-effects model was used, and radiographic fusion and complications were assessed by risk ratio with a corresponding 95% credible interval; Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores were assessed by mean difference and 95% credible interval. Furthermore, with respect to each endpoint, ranking probabilities for each fusion procedure were evaluated using the value of the surface under the cumulative ranking curve.

RESULTS

In all, 12 studies were identified. Significant differences in associated complications were found between minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MTLIF) and each of the other 4 fusion procedures. Surface under the cumulative ranking curve results suggested that for the most effective radiographic fusion, open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (OTLIF) had the maximum probability of being successful (76.6%), followed by MTLIF (70.4%) and open posterior lumbar interbody fusion (OPLIF, 48.7%). In terms of ODI scores, OTLIF might be the best intervention (70.5%), followed by MTLIF (68.8%) and then OPLIF (44.0%). However, MTLIF is ranked the safest (99.8%) regarding associated complications, followed sequentially by OTLIF (57.1%) and posterolateral fusion (30.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

OTLIF for spondylolisthesis was found to be the more efficient procedure in terms of radiographic fusion and ODI scores. Importantly, MTLIF is most likely to have a lower associated complication rate compared with other fusion procedures.

Lordosis Restoration With Midline Minimally Invasive Cortical Trajectory Screws (MidLF) and Transforaminal Interbody Fusion: A Safe Technique With a Short Stay

BACKGROUND

The minimally invasive cortical trajectory screw (MidLF) technique has been described accompanied with posterolateral interbody fusion (PLIF). We present our 2-year results of a hybrid technique to show that using transforaminal interbody fusion (TLIF) rather than PLIF in conjunction with MidLF is a less invasive and safe technique.

METHODS

We retrospectively identified 25 patients who underwent MidLF with TLIF from July 2015 through September 2017. The surgical technique was the same for each, with radiological, clinical, and patient-reported outcome data collected and analyzed at a 2-year follow-up.

RESULTS

The cohort showed a mean age of 55 (35-85) years. The length of hospital stay was between 1 and 4 days, with an average of 2.7 days. Postoperatively, lordosis across the motion segment fused increased by a mean of 7.3° (0°-24°), mean pelvic incidence was 53°(31°-80°), and pelvic tilt reduced by an average of 3.5° (0°-11°). The Oswestry Disability Index improved from 34 preoperatively to 19 postoperatively. Visual analogue pain score-leg improved by 4.7 points, from 6 down to 1. One patient showed delayed wound healing. There were no incidences of neurological injury or durotomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggests that MidLF with TLIF is both less invasive than traditional techniques and safe. It restores lordosis, requires less exposure and retraction of neural elements than the more widely used PLIF, and shows early discharge and satisfactory medium-term patient-reported outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The MidLF technique with PLIF is less invasive than traditional techniques, restores alignment and shows satisfactory medium term results.

Lumbar spinal stenosis combined with obesity-induced idiopathic spinal epidural lipomatosis treated with posterior lumbar fusion: case report

BACKGROUND

Spinal epidural lipomatosis is a rare cause of lumbar spinal stenosis. While conservative therapy is applicable for most of cases, surgical intervention is necessary for severe ones. This is the first time we apply this modified technique to this disease.

CASE PRESENTATION

The case is a 53-year-old man. He is 175 cm tall and weighs 102 kg (body mass index 33.3 kg/cm²), presenting with low back pain and bilateral legs pain and numbness. Radiological examination showed severe lumbar spinal stenosis resulting from adipose hyperplasia, combined with hyperosteogeny and hypertrophy of ligaments, which are common etiological factors. Posterior decompression, internal fixation and a modified articular fusion technique was performed on this patient, and regular follow-up that up o 22 months showed outstanding clinical outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

A suitable style of posterior lumbar fusion should be considered to especially severe case with lumbar spinal stenosis and idiopathic spinal epidural lipomatosis.

Comparative Study between Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Posterolateral Fusion for Treatment of Spondylolisthesis: Clinical Outcomes and Spino-Pelvic Sagittal Balance Parameters

Objective This retrospective study aims to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of posterolateral fusion (PLF) with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF + PLF) for the treatment of patients with low-grade spondylolisthesis.

Methodology A total of 77 adult patients ≥18 years with low-grade spondylolisthesis, Meyerding grades I and II, were assigned into two groups: 36 patients treated with PLF and 41 patients treated with TLIF + PLF. The PLF group is composed of the patients that were operated with pedicle screw and the TLIF + PLF group is composed of the ones that were operated with fixation and TILF by autografting. Clinical evaluation was performed using the spino-pelvic sagittal balance, Numeric Rating Scale, Oswestry Disability Index, blood loss, operation times, and postoperative hospital stay of the PLF vs TLIF groups. The incidences of postoperative low back pain and radicular pain in the two groups were also recorded. Radiography was performed preoperatively and postoperatively to assess spino-pelvic parameters.

Results Significant restoration of spino-pelvic sagittal balance was observed in the TLIF group after surgery, and all spino-pelvic sagittal balance parameters showed significant improvement in the TLIF group after surgery, while in the PLF group, all spino-pelvic sagittal parameters had improved except the segmental angle lordosis (p = 0.316), which showed no significant difference after surgery in the PLF group. Postoperative pelvic incidence and pelvic tilt significantly improved in the TLIF group in comparison to PLF groups. Hence, TLIF can achieve better postoperative spino-pelvic sagittal balance parameters than PLF. There was no difference in the complication rates for each group. Both groups achieved significant improvement in postoperative clinical outcomes, and there was no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative low back pain or radicular pain between the two groups.

Conclusion Both surgical procedures PLF and TLIF were effective. PLF and TLIF can result in improved clinical and radiological outcomes for patients treated for low-grade spondylolisthesis. TLIF can achieve better restoration of spino-pelvic sagittal balance parameters than PLF alone.

Clinical implications of lumbar developmental spinal stenosis on back pain, radicular leg pain, and disability

AIMS

To study the associations of lumbar developmental spinal stenosis (DSS) with low back pain (LBP), radicular leg pain, and disability.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional study of 2,206 subjects along with L1-S1 axial and sagittal MRI. Clinical and radiological information regarding their demographics, workload, smoking habits, anteroposterior (AP) vertebral canal diameter, spondylolisthesis, and MRI changes were evaluated. Mann-Whitney U tests and chi-squared tests were conducted to search for differences between subjects with and without DSS. Associations of LBP and radicular pain reported within one month (30 days) and one year (365 days) of the MRI, with clinical and radiological information, were also investigated by utilizing univariate and multivariate logistic regressions.

RESULTS

Subjects with DSS had higher prevalence of radicular leg pain, more pain-related disability, and lower quality of life (all p < 0.05). Subjects with DSS had 1.5 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.0 to 2.1; p = 0.027) and 1.8 (95% CI 1.3 to 2.6; p = 0.001) times higher odds of having radicular leg pain in the past month and the past year, respectively. However, DSS was not associated with LBP. Although, subjects with a spondylolisthesis had 1.7 (95% CI 1.1 to 2.5; p = 0.011) and 2.0 (95% CI 1.2 to 3.2; p = 0.008) times greater odds to experience LBP in the past month and the past year, respectively.

CONCLUSION

This large-scale study identified DSS as a risk factor of acute and chronic radicular leg pain. DSS was seen in 6.9% of the study cohort and these patients had narrower spinal canals. Subjects with DSS had earlier onset of symptoms, more severe radicular leg pain, which lasted for longer and were more likely to have worse disability and poorer quality of life. In these patients there is an increased likelihood of nerve root compression due to a pre-existing narrowed canal, which is important when planning surgery as patients are likely to require multi-level decompression surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(1):131-140.

Instrumented Posterolateral fusion versus instrumented Interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar diseases in uremic patients under hemodialysis

Background

Advances in hemodialysis have facilitated longer lifespan and better quality of life for patients with end stage renal disease (ESRD). Symptomatic degenerative lumbar diseases (DLD) becomes more common in patients with ESRD. Posterior instrumented fusion remains popular for spinal stenosis combining instability. Only a few sporadic studies mentioned about surgical outcomes in patients with ESRD underwent spine surgeries, but no one discussed about which fusion method was optimal for this kind of patients. In this study, we compared the differences between lumbar posterolateral fusion (PLF) and lumbar interbody fusion (IBF) in uremic patients underwent instrumented lumbar surgeries.

Methods

Between January 2005 and December 2017, ESRD patients under maintenance hemodialysis underwent posterior instrumented fusion for DLD were reviewed. A PLF group and an IBF group were identified. The demographic data was collected using their medical records. Clinical outcomes were evaluated by Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and the visual analogue scale (VAS); radiographic results were assessed using final fusion rates. Any surgical or implant-related complication was documented.

Results

A total of 34 patients (22 women and 12 men, mean age of 65.4 years) in PLF group and 45 patients (26 women and 19 men, mean age of 65.1 years) in IBF group were enrolled. Both groups had similar surgical levels. The operation time was longer (200.9 vs 178.3 min, p = 0.029) and the amount of blood loss was higher (780.0 vs 428.4 ml, p = 0.001) in the IBF group. The radiographic fusion rate was better in the PLF group but without significant difference (65.2% vs 58.8%, p = 0.356). Seven in the PLF group and ten in the IBF group developed surgical complications (20.5% vs. 22.2%, p = 0.788); three patients in the PLF group (8.8%) and five patients in the IBF group (11.1%) received revision surgeries because of implant-related or wound complications. Comparing to preoperative ODI and VAS, postoperative ODI and VAS obtained significant improvement in both groups.

Conclusions

Successful fusion rates and clinical improvement (VAS, ODI) were similar in IBF and PLF group. Uremic patients underwent IBF for DLD had longer length of operation and higher operative blood loss than underwent PLF.

A Comparison of Revision Rates and Patient-Reported Outcomes for a 2-Level Posterolateral Fusion Augmented With Single Versus 2-Level Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective, single institution, multisurgeon case control series.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether there are differences in reoperation rates or outcomes for patients undergoing 2-level posterolateral fusion (PLF) augmented by a transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) at only one of the levels or at both.

METHODS

A total of 416 patients were identified who underwent 2-level PLF with a TLIF at either one of those levels (n = 183) or at both (n = 233) with greater than 1-year follow-up. Demographic, surgical, radiographic, and clinical data was reviewed for each patient. These included age, sex, race, body mass index, smoking status, Charleston Comorbidity Index, operative time, estimated blood loss, length of stay, and patient-reported outcome measures.

RESULTS

Each cohort underwent 24 reoperations. Although the number of overall reoperations was not significantly different (P > .05), among the reoperation types, there were significantly more reoperations for adjacent segment disease in the 2-level group compared to the 1-level group (19 vs 12, P = .04). There was no difference in reoperation for pseudarthrosis between the groups (P > .05). Although both groups experienced significant improvements in Oswestry Disability Index (P < .001) and Short Form-12 health questionnaire (P < .001), there were no differences between improvements for 1- versus 2-level cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients undergoing 2-level PLF in the setting of a TLIF, using a TLIF at one versus both levels does not seem to influence reoperation rates or outcomes. However, reoperation rates for adjacent segment disease are increased in the setting of a 2-level PLF augmented by a 2-level TLIF.

Single-level Posterolateral Fusion (PLF) Alone and Posterior Interbody Fusion (PLIF/TLIF) Alone Lead to a Decreased Risk of Short-term Complications Compared to Combined PLF With PLIF/TLIF Procedures: A Matched Analysis

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective review of a database cohort.

OBJECTIVE

To compare short-term outcome measures and complications between single-level posterolateral fusion (PLF), single-level posterior interbody fusion (PLIF/TLIF), and combined single-level PLF+PLIF/TLIF.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Both PLF and interbody fusion are well-established procedures for degenerative spinal disease. However, there is lack of consensus as to the ideal surgical approach for specific applications. Additionally, the difference in risk of complications with traditional PLF, interbody fusion with posterior approach, and circumferential fusion is still contested.

METHODS

The ACS NSQIP database was used to identify 24,228 patients who underwent either a single-level PLF, single-level PLIF/TLIF, or combined single-level PLF+PLIF/TLIF between 2014 and 2017. To control for potential confounding variables, exact matching was used to pair individuals from each treatment group based on several factors, including sex, age, body mass index, various comorbidities, and American Society of Anesthesiologists classification. After appropriate matching, the rate of various short-term outcome measures and complications were compared between the three treatment groups.

RESULTS

After exact matching, 13,251 patients were included in the final analysis. The rates of non-home discharge, overall surgical complications, and bleeding requiring transfusion were significantly lower in the PLF group and PLIF/TLIF group relative to the PLF+PLIF/TLIF group (P < 0.001 for all comparisons). The rate of deep venous thrombosis was lower in the PLIF/TLIF group relative to the PLF group (P = 0.006). There were no significant differences in other medical complications, unplanned readmission, reoperation, or return to the OR between any of the treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of single-level PLF+PLIF/TLIF is associated with higher rates of short-term complications relative to either single-level PLF or PLIF/TLIF alone. The associated risks of this therapy should be considered when considering surgical management for lumbar disease.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

[Rigid transpedicular fusion surgery in the treatment of degenerative lumbar stenosis]

OBJECTIVE

To compare an effectiveness of different methods of rigid transpedicular fixation and decompression in patients with degenerative lumbar stenosis.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A prospective study included 160 patients with degenerative lumbar spine stenosis. In the first group (n=37), patients underwent laminectomy and transpedicular fixation, in the second group (n=60) - laminectomy, transpedicular fixation and implantation of interbody fusion cage. In the third group (n=30), interlaminar decompression and transpedicular fixation were carried oud, in the fourth group (n=33) - interlaminar decompression, transpedicular fixation and implantation of interbody fusion cage. Surgeries were performed in three clinics in Moscow. Outcomes were assessed using a visual analogue scale (VAS) and Oswestry questionnaire in 1 and 2 years after surgery. Between-group comparison of the outcomes was performed. In patients with unfavorable outcome, we analyzed the cause of unsatisfactory result and risk factors.

RESULTS

Satisfactory result was noted in 103 patients (64%) in 2 years after surgery. Outcomes were comparable in all groups. More significant regression of back pain was noted in group II (laminectomy, transpedicular fixation, interbody cage) compared to other groups. Preoperative risk factors of adverse outcome were resting leg pain VAS score > 4 and age over 71 years. Incidence of pseudoarthrosis and back pain was higher among patients without interbody cage. Incidence of adjacent level lesion was higher among patients with interbody cages.

CONCLUSION

Decompression type and implantation of interbody cage do not significantly change postoperative outcomes in most patients with degenerative lumbar stenosis undergoing transpedicular fixation. However, interbody cage implantation during transpedicular fixation is advisable in patients with severe back pain (VAS score > 5-6).

Thirty-Day Outcomes From Standalone Minimally Invasive Surgery-Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Patients in an Ambulatory Surgery Center vs. Hospital Setting

Objectives

We sought to evaluate differences in perioperative baseline characteristics, operative efficiency, and 30-day safety events for patients undergoing standalone minimally invasive surgery-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) in a hospital versus an ambulatory surgery center (ASC).

Methods

Patients were retrospectively identified and sequentially enrolled from the office records of a single, community neurosurgeon. Records for the first 50 qualifying patients in the hospital and ASC cohorts were retrieved. Variables collected included: baseline demographic and health status, operative safety (intra-op complications) and efficiency (operative time, fluoroscopy time, etc.), and 30-day post-operative safety (emergency room visits, re-admission, and re-operation).

Results

At baseline, hospital and ASC patients were equivalent in gender distribution, BMI, and pre-operative narcotic use. Statistically significant differences were found in age and comorbidity burden (ASA status and Charleson Comorbidity Index); p < 0.0001, p = 0.0039, and p < 0.001 respectively. The only significant difference in construct type between hospital and ASC patients was the proportion of one- versus two-level fusions; all two-level fusions were performed in the hospital group. There were no differences in operative time, need for transfusions, or iatrogenic complications. There were also no differences between the groups in 30-day events of ER visits, re-admission, re-operation, or post-operative narcotic refill use. The length of stay was significantly different between the ASC and hospital settings (p < 0.0001).

Conclusions

As expected, ASC patients were younger and relatively healthier compared to their hospital counterparts. Thirty-day safety events of ER visits, re-admission, re-operation, and narcotic refill utilization were representative of population norms. Patients with standalone, expandable MIS-TLIF underwent efficient operative procedures and experienced minimal 30-day complications independent of their operative status. ASC patients had the added benefit of significantly reduced length of stay over their hospital counterparts. Given the equivalency of the 30-day post-operative course for both patient cohorts, a substantial reduction in economic burden is likely for the ASC patients.

Comparing rates of early pedicle screw loosening in posterolateral lumbar fusion with and without transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Addition of interbody fusion via a transforaminal approach (TLIF) has become a popular surgical option for treatment of degenerative lumbar conditions. Although technically more complicated than posterolateral fusion surgery (PLF), it has been suggested that TLIF provides superior immediate stability and protects against early pedicle screw loosening. This theory has never been formally examined in a clinical study.

PURPOSE

To determine the impact of TLIF on early pedicle screw loosening and radiographic fusion rates compared with PLF using pedicle screws alone in the treatment of single level lumbar degenerative conditions.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective computed tomography (CT) based review.

PATIENT SAMPLE

One hundred ninety-three patients underwent TLIF+PLF with local autograft bone or PLF alone with local autograft bone.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Radiographic fusion rates and screw loosening were measured at 6 and 12 months using strict CT criteria. Patient self-reported outcome measures included Visual Analog Scale for low back pain and leg pain and Oswestry Disability Index.

METHODS

Postoperative thin-cut CTs were examined for pedicle screw loosening and radiographic fusion status. Early screw loosening rates were determined using 6-month postoperative CT, whereas radiographic fusion rates were determined using 12-month postoperative CT. One-way analysis of variance was used to determine significant differences in mean outcome scores and other continuous measures between groups at baseline and follow-up. Chi-square test of independence or Fisher's exact test was used to compare proportions between groups on categorical measures.

RESULTS

Eighty-three patients underwent TLIF+PLF (Group A) and 115 patients underwent PLF alone (Group B). At 6-month follow-up, loosening was observed in 49 of 792 total screws (6.19%). Of Group A, 7.23% of patients demonstrated loosening of one or more screws compared with 18.3% of Group B (Chi-Square value 4.98; p=.0256). Six-month radiographic fusion rates were 36.1% in Group A versus 44.3% in Group B. Twelve-month radiographic fusion rates increased to 58.6% in Group A versus 73.1% in Group B. Among Group A patients not yet fused at 6 months, screw loosening was associated with a 0% rate of radiographic fusion at 12 months versus 41.2% without screw loosening. Rates for Group B were 6.25% and 70.3%, respectively. Patient age was a significant independent predictor of loosening (p=.0336).

CONCLUSIONS

TLIF appears to have a protective effect, reducing rates of early screw loosening by approximately 60% versus PLF. However, this effect appears independent of actual overall radiographic fusion rates which may be approximately 20% lower with TLIF at 12 months. TLIF may have advantages in patients where early loosening is a particular concern, for example, in the setting of increased patient age.

Critically Low Confidence in the Results Produced by Spine Surgery Systematic Reviews: An AMSTAR-2 Evaluation From 4 Spine Journals

STUDY DESIGN

A systematic cross-sectional survey of systematic reviews (SRs).

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the methodological quality of spine surgery SRs published in 2018 using the updated AMSTAR 2 critical appraisal instrument.

METHODS

We identified the PubMed indexed journals devoted to spine surgery research in 2018. All SRs of spine surgical interventions from those journals were critically appraised for quality independently by 2 reviewers using the AMSTAR 2 instrument. We calculated the percentage of SRs achieving a positive response for each AMSTAR 2 domain item and assessed the levels of confidence in the results of each SR.

RESULTS

We identified 28 SRs from 4 journals that met our criteria for inclusion. Only 49.5% of the AMSTAR 2 domain items satisfied the AMSTAR 2 criteria. Critical domain items were satisfied less often (39.1%) compared with noncritical domain items (57.3%). Domain items most poorly reported include accounting for individual study risk of bias when interpreting results (14%), list and justification of excluded articles (18%), and an a priori establishment of methods prior to the review or registered protocol (18%). The overall confidence in the results was rated "low" in 2 SRs and "critically low" in 26.

CONCLUSIONS

The credibility of a SR and its value to clinicians and policy makers are dependent on its methodological quality. This appraisal found significant methodological limitations in several critical domains, such that the confidence in the findings of these reviews is "critically low."

Predicting spondylolisthesis correction with prone traction radiographs

Aims

To determine the effectiveness of prone traction radiographs in predicting postoperative slip distance, slip angle, changes in disc height, and lordosis after surgery for degenerative spondylolisthesis of the lumbar spine.

Methods

A total of 63 consecutive patients with a degenerative spondylolisthesis and preoperative prone traction radiographs obtained since 2010 were studied. Slip distance, slip angle, disc height, segmental lordosis, and global lordosis (L1 to S1) were measured on preoperative lateral standing radiographs, flexion-extension lateral radiographs, prone traction lateral radiographs, and postoperative lateral standing radiographs. Patients were divided into two groups: posterolateral fusion or posterolateral fusion with interbody fusion.

Results

The mean changes in segmental lordosis and global lordosis were 7.1° (SD 6.7°) and 2.9° (SD 9.9°) respectively for the interbody fusion group, and 0.8° (SD 5.1°) and -0.4° (SD 10.1°) respectively for the posterolateral fusion-only group. Segmental lordosis (ρ = 0.794, p < 0.001) corrected by interbody fusion correlated best with prone traction radiographs. Global lumbar lordosis (ρ = 0.788, p < 0.001) correlated best with the interbody fusion group and preoperative lateral standing radiographs. The least difference in slip distance (-0.3 mm (SD 1.7 mm), p < 0.001), slip angle (0.9° (SD 5.2°), p < 0.001), and disc height (0.02 mm (SD 2.4 mm), p < 0.001) was seen between prone traction and postoperative radiographs. Regression analyses suggested that prone traction parameters best predicted correction of slip distance (Corrected Akaike’s Information Criterion (AICc) = 37.336) and disc height (AICc = 58.096), while correction of slip angle (AICc = 26.453) was best predicted by extension radiographs. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) cut-off showed, with 68.3% sensitivity and 64.5% specificity, that to achieve a 3.0° increase in segmental lordotic angle, patients with a prone traction disc height of 8.5 mm needed an interbody fusion.

Conclusion

Prone traction radiographs best predict the slip distance and disc height correction achieved by interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. To achieve this maximum correction, interbody fusion should be undertaken if a disc height of more than 8.5 mm is attained on preoperative prone traction radiographs. Level of Evidence: Level II Prognostic Study Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(8):1062–1071.

Surgical Strategies for the Treatment of Lumbar Pseudarthrosis in Degenerative Spine Surgery: A Literature Review and Case Study

BACKGROUND

Pseudarthrosis after lumbar fusion can generate pain and disability and often requires revision. However, results of revision procedures have historically been relatively poor.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSE

The aim of this review was to examine the current evidence related to the management of lumbar pseudarthrosis, with a focus on revision after failure of posterolateral fusion or lumbar interbody fusion.

METHODS

A review of orthopedic spine literature published before March 2019 was conducted using PubMed and Google Scholar. Studies addressing revision after failed posterolateral fusions and after failed interbody fusion were selected. We also present a case of successful revision after failed transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF).

RESULTS

The review revealed that persistent pseudarthrosis after revision posterolateral fusion occurs at rates of 35 to 51%. No significant difference has been demonstrated in rates of successful fusion after anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) and ALIF with revision posterolateral fusion for pseudarthroses after failed TLIF procedures (81% versus 88%), although ALIF alone may be appealing because it avoids further disruption of the posterior musculature. No significant differences have been observed in quality-of-life scores among patients undergoing revision after posterolateral fusion, TLIF, ALIF, or ALIF with posterior fusion. Failed TLIF cages may be extracted and replaced through an anterior or lateral approach. If the geometry of the failed cage permits insertion of a second cage, a contralateral approach may be used. Revision retroperitoneal approaches are associated with higher complication rates.

CONCLUSIONS

The management of lumbar pseudarthrosis requires careful planning, as well as intra-operative attention to detail, for revision surgery to be successful. Circumferential procedures have shown success in revision posterolateral and interbody fusion failures.

Augmenting posterolateral fusion with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion cage improves clinical outcome, but not fusion rate, of posterior decompression

Objective

This study was performed to compare fusion rates and clinical outcomes of posterior decompression by posterolateral fusion (PLF) versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) for treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study involved 157 patients with lumbar spinal stenosis treated with instrumented PLF alone or instrumented PLF combined with TLIF from 2010 to 2018. The patients were divided into two groups: the PLF group (Group A), in which posterior decompression with instrumented PLF was performed, and the cage-augmented group (Group B), in which TLIF was added to the procedures described for the PLF group. Patient outcomes (Oswestry Disability Index, visual analog scale score, and 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey scores) and fusion rates were compared.

Results

The fusion rate was similar between the two groups. Among patients with two- and three-level fusion, improvements in the clinical outcome scores were significantly greater in Group B than Group A.

Conclusion

Combining TLIF with PLF provides better clinical outcomes than PLF alone when multilevel fusion is indicated. TLIF augmentation does not improve the fusion rates in either single- or multi-level surgery.

Decompression With or Without Fusion for Lumbar Stenosis: A Cost Minimization Analysis

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective database review.

OBJECTIVE

Compare 1-year episode of care costs between single-level decompression and decompression plus fusion for lumbar stenosis.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Lumbar stenosis is the most common indication for surgery in patients over 65. Medicare direct hospital costs for lumbar surgery reached $1.65 billion in 2007. Despite stenosis being a common indication for surgery, there is debate as to the preferred surgical treatment. Cost-minimization analysis is a framework that identifies potential cost savings between treatment options that have similar outcomes. We performed a cost-minimization analysis of decompression versus decompression with fusion for lumbar stenosis from the payer perspective.

METHODS

An administrative claims database of privately insured patients (Humana) identified patients who underwent decompression (n = 5349) or decompression with fusion (n = 8540) for lumbar stenosis with and without spondylolisthesis and compared overall costs. All patients were identified and costs identified for a 1-year period. Complication rates and costs were described using summary statistics.

RESULTS

Mean treatment costs at 1 year after surgery were higher for patients who underwent decompression and fusion compared to patients who underwent decompression alone ($20,892 for fusion vs. $6329 for decompression; P < 0.001). Facility costs (P < 0.001), surgeon costs (P < 0.001), and physical therapy costs (P < 0.001) were higher in the fusion group. Cost differences related to infection or durotomy reached significance (P < 0.04). No difference in cost was identified for supplies.

CONCLUSION

Decompression had significantly lower costs for the treatment of lumbar stenosis, including treatment for postoperative complications. If cost minimization is the primary goal, decompression is favored for surgical treatment of lumbar stenosis. Other factors including shared decision-making directed toward patient's values, patient-reported outcomes, and preferences should also be recognized as drivers of healthcare decisions.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

Fusion technique does not affect short-term patient-reported outcomes for lumbar degenerative disease

BACKGROUND/CONTEXT

Degenerative lumbar disease can be addressed via an anterior or posterior approach, and with or without the use of an interbody cage. Although several studies have compared the type of approach and technique, there is a lack of literature assessing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and radiographic parameters between different fusion techniques.

PURPOSE

To determine whether the surgical approach and fusion technique for lumbar degenerative disease had an effect on short-term PROMs and radiographic parameters.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

Retrospective Cohort Study.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Three hundred and ninety-one patients who underwent a 1-3 level lumbar spine fusion procedure at a high-volume academic center were retrospectively identified. Patients were divided into three groups based on the type of fusion they underwent: posterolateral fusion (PLF), anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF).

OUTCOME MEASURES

PROMs: Short Form-12 (SF-12) Physical Component Score (PCS) and Mental Component Score (MCS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Visual Analog Score (VAS) Back, VAS Leg. Spinopelvic measurements: Pelvic Tilt (PT), Sacral Slope (SS), Pelvic Incidence (PI), Lumbar Lordosis (LL), Segmental Lordosis (SL), PI-LL mismatch.

METHODS

Patients with less than 1-year follow-up were excluded from the cohort. Pre- and postoperative spinopelvic measurements were obtained for all patients. Univariate analysis (Chi-squared/Fisher's exact test or ANOVA test with post-hoc Bonferroni test) was used to compare among the three groups in the PROMs and radiographic spinopelvic parameters. Multiple linear regression was used to determine if fusion technique was an independent predictor of change in each patient outcome.

RESULTS

Two hundred and sixteen patients were included in the PLF group, 33 patients in the ALIF group, and 142 patients in the TLIF group. The PLF group was significantly older at baseline (p<.001) and had lower preoperative diagnosis rates of degenerative scoliosis and disc herniations (p<.001), whereas the ALIF group underwent a higher proportion of three-level fusions (p<.001). There was no significant difference in spinopelvic parameters preoperatively, however the ALIF group showed significantly more improvement in SL postoperatively (p=.004) than the PLF and TLIF groups. Within each group, SL improved for the PLF and ALIF groups (p=.002 for both), but not for the TLIF group (p=.238). Comparing patient outcomes, the ALIF group reported lower preoperative VAS Leg scores (p=.031), however, this difference resolved postoperatively. Stratifying for preoperative diagnosis, there were no significant differences in outcomes, except for a greater improvement in VAS Leg scores for degenerative scoliosis patients undergoing ALIF. Using multivariate analysis, fusion technique was not found to be a significant predictor of change in any patient outcome or in odds of revision.

CONCLUSIONS

Lumbar degenerative disease can be treated with several different fusion techniques, however, the relationship between type of fusion and PROMs is not established. Based on the findings in this study, the ALIF group showed greater improvement in SL compared with the PLF and TLIF groups, however, there was no difference noted in overall LL, PI-LL mismatch or other spinopelvic parameters. Despite these radiographic findings, patient outcome measures remained similar between all three fusion types.