Perioperative outcomes in minimally invasive lumbar spine surgery: A systematic review

Two-Year Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes for Percutaneous Lumbar Interbody Fusion With an Expandable Titanium Cage Through Kambin's Triangle Without Facetectomy

BACKGROUND

There has been heightened interest in performing percutaneous lumbar interbody fusions (percLIFs) through Kambin's triangle, an anatomic corridor allowing entrance into the disc space. However, due to its novelty, there are limited data regarding the long-term benefits of this procedure. Our objective was to determine the long-term efficacy and durability of the percutaneous insertion of an expandable titanium cage through Kambin's triangle without facetectomy.

METHODS

A retrospective review of patients undergoing percLIF via Kambin's triangle using an expandable titanium cage was performed. Demographics, visual analog scale (VAS) scores, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), radiographic measurements, perioperative variables, and complications were recorded. VAS, ODI, and radiographic measurements were compared with baseline using the generalized estimating equations assuming normally distributed data. Fusion was assessed with computed tomography (CT) at 1 and 2 years after the procedure.

RESULTS

A total of 49 patients were included. Spondylolisthesis, lumbar lordosis (LL), sacral slope, pelvic tilt, and anterior/posterior disc space height were all significantly improved postoperatively at each time point of 3, 6, 12, and 24 months (P < 0.001). Pelvic incidence-LL mismatch decreased significantly at each follow-up (P < 0.001) with a mean reduction of 4° by 24 months. VAS back scores reduced by >2 points at the 6, 12, and 24 month follow-ups. ODI scores reduced by >15 points at the 12- and 24-month follow-ups. Of the patients who had 1- and 2-year CT images, fusion rates at those time points were 94.4% (17/18) and 87.5% (7/8), respectively. The mean annual rate of surgically significant adjacent segment disease was 2.74% through an average follow-up of 2.74 years.

CONCLUSION

These results highlight that percLIF, a procedure done without an endoscope or facetectomy, can be performed using an expandable titanium cage through Kambin's triangle with excellent radiographic and clinical results.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

percLIF via Kambin's triangle is a safe and succesful procedure with long-term improvements in both clinical and radiographic outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3

Inducing Angiogenesis in the Nucleus Pulposus

Bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) gene delivery to Lewis rat lumbar intervertebral discs (IVDs) drives bone formation anterior and external to the IVD, suggesting the IVD is inhospitable to osteogenesis. This study was designed to determine if IVD destruction with a proteoglycanase, and/or generating an IVD blood supply by gene delivery of an angiogenic growth factor, could render the IVD permissive to intra-discal BMP-driven osteogenesis and fusion. Surgical intra-discal delivery of naïve or gene-programmed cells (BMP2/BMP7 co-expressing or VEGF165 expressing) +/- purified chondroitinase-ABC (chABC) in all permutations was performed between lumbar 4/5 and L5/6 vertebrae, and radiographic, histology, and biomechanics endpoints were collected. Follow-up anti-sFlt Western blotting was performed. BMP and VEGF/BMP treatments had the highest stiffness, bone production and fusion. Bone was induced anterior to the IVD, and was not intra-discal from any treatment. chABC impaired BMP-driven osteogenesis, decreased histological staining for IVD proteoglycans, and made the IVD permissive to angiogenesis. A soluble fragment of VEGF Receptor-1 (sFlt) was liberated from the IVD matrix by incubation with chABC, suggesting dysregulation of the sFlt matrix attachment is a possible mechanism for the chABC-mediated IVD angiogenesis we observed. Based on these results, the IVD can be manipulated to foster vascular invasion, and by extension, possibly osteogenesis.

Improvement following minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in patients aged 70 years or older compared with younger age groups

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this study was to assess the outcomes of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) in patients ≥ 70 years old and compare them to younger age groups.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study of data that were collected prospectively. Patients who underwent primary single-level MI-TLIF were included and divided into 3 groups: age < 60, 60-69, and ≥ 70 years. The outcome measures were as follows: 1) patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) (i.e., visual analog scale [VAS] for back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index [ODI], 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey Physical Component Summary [SF-12 PCS]); 2) minimum clinically important difference (MCID) achievement; 3) return to activities; 4) opioid discontinuation; 5) fusion rates; and 6) complications/reoperations.

RESULTS

A total of 147 patients (age < 60 years, 62; 60-69 years, 47; ≥ 70 years, 38) were included. All the groups showed significant improvements in all PROMs at the early (< 6 months) and late (≥ 6 months) time points and there was no significant difference between the groups. Although MCID achievement rates for VAS leg and ODI were similar, they were lower in the ≥ 70-year-old patient group for VAS back and SF-12 PCS. Although the time to MCID achievement for ODI and SF-12 PCS was similar, it was greater in the ≥ 70-year-old patient group for VAS back and leg. There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of return to activities, opioid discontinuation, fusion rates, and complication/reoperation rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Although patients > 70 years of age may be less likely and/or take longer to achieve MCID compared to their younger counterparts, they show an overall significant improvement in PROMs, a similar likelihood of returning to activities and discontinuing opioids, and comparable fusion and complication/reoperation rates following MI-TLIF.

Practical answers to frequently asked questions in minimally invasive lumbar spine surgery

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Surgical counseling enables shared decision-making (SDM) by improving patients' understanding.

PURPOSE

To provide answers to frequently asked questions (FAQs) in minimally invasive lumbar spine surgery.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective review of prospectively collected data.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Patients who underwent primary tubular minimally invasive lumbar spine surgery in form of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF), decompression alone, or microdiscectomy and had a minimum of 1-year follow-up.

OUTCOME MEASURES

(1) Surgical (radiation exposure and intraoperative complications) (2)Immediate postoperative (length of stay [LOS] and complications) (3) Clinical outcomes (Visual Analog Scale- back and leg, VAS; Oswestry Disability Index, ODI; 12-Item Short Form Survey Physical Component Score, SF-12 PCS; Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function, PROMIS PF; Global Rating Change, GRC; return to activities; complications/reoperations) METHODS: The outcome measures were analyzed to provide answers to ten FAQs that were compiled based on the authors' experience and a review of literature. Changes in VAS back, VAS leg, ODI, and SF-12 PCS from preoperative values to the early (<6 months) and late (>6 months) postoperative time points were analyzed with Wilcoxon Signed Rank Tests. % of patients achieving minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for these patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) at the two time points was evaluated. Changes in PROs from preoperative values too early (<6 months) and late (≥6 months) postoperative time points were analyzed within each of the three groups. Percentage of patients achieving MCID was also evaluated.

RESULTS

Three hundred sixty-six patients (104 TLIF, 147 decompression, 115 microdiscectomy) were included. The following FAQs were answered: (1) Will my back pain improve? Most patients report improvement by >50%. About 60% of TLIF, decompression, and microdiscectomy patients achieved MCID at ≥6 months. (2) Will my leg pain improve? Most patients report improvement by >50%. 56% of TLIF, 67% of decompression, and 70% of microdiscectomy patients achieved MCID at ≥6 months. (3) Will my activity level improve? Most patients report significant improvement. Sixty-six percent of TLIF, 55% of decompression, and 75% of microdiscectomy patients achieved MCID for SF-12 PCS. (4) Is there a chance I will get worse? Six percent after TLIF, 14% after decompression, and 5% after microdiscectomy. (5) Will I receive a significant amount of radiation? The radiation exposure is likely to be acceptable and nearly insignificant in terms of radiation-related risks. (6) What is the likelihood that I will have a complication? 17.3% (15.4% minor, 1.9% major) for TLIF, 10% (9.3% minor and 0.7% major) for decompression, and 1.7% (all minor) for microdiscectomy (7) Will I need another surgery? Six percent after TLIF, 16.3% after decompression, 13% after microdiscectomy. (8) How long will I stay in the hospital? Most patients get discharged on postoperative day one after TLIF and on the same day after decompression and microdiscectomy. (9) When will I be able to return to work? >80% of patients return to work (average: 25 days after TLIF, 14 days after decompression, 11 days after microdiscectomy). (10) Will I be able to drive again? >90% of patients return to driving (average: 22 days after TLIF, 11 days after decompression, 14 days after microdiscectomy).

CONCLUSIONS

These concise answers to the FAQs in minimally invasive lumbar spine surgery can be used by physicians as a reference to enable patient education.

Improvement following minimally invasive lumbar decompression in patients 80 years or older compared with younger age groups

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to assess the outcomes of minimally invasive lumbar decompression in patients ≥ 80 years of age and compare them with those of younger age groups.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study. Patients who underwent primary unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression (ULBD) (any number of levels) and had a minimum of 1 year of follow-up were included and divided into three groups by age: < 60 years, 60-79 years, and ≥ 80 years. The outcome measures were 1) patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) (visual analog scale [VAS] back and leg, Oswestry Disability Index [ODI], 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey [SF-12] Physical Component Summary [PCS] and Mental Component Summary [MCS] scores, and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function [PROMIS PF]); 2) percentage of patients achieving the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and the time taken to do so; and 3) complications and reoperations. Two postoperative time points were defined: early (< 6 months) and late (≥ 6 months).

RESULTS

A total of 345 patients (< 60 years: n = 94; 60-79 years: n = 208; ≥ 80 years: n = 43) were included in this study. The groups had significantly different average BMIs (least in patients aged ≥ 80 years), age-adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Indices (greatest in the ≥ 80-year age group), and operative times (greatest in 60- to 79-year age group). There was no difference in sex, number of operated levels, and estimated blood loss between groups. Compared with the preoperative values, the < 60-year and 60- to 79-year age groups showed a significant improvement in most PROMs at both the early and late time points. In contrast, the ≥ 80-year age group only showed significant improvement in PROMs at the late time point. Although there were significant differences between the groups in the magnitude of improvement (least improvement in ≥ 80-year age group) at the early time point in VAS back and leg, ODI, and SF-12 MCS, no significant difference was seen at the late time point except in ODI (least improvement in ≥ 80-year group). The overall MCID achievement rate decreased, moving from the < 60-year age group toward the ≥ 80-year age group at both the early (64% vs 51% vs 41% ) and late (72% vs 58% vs 52%) time points. The average time needed to achieve the MCID in pain and disability increased, moving from the < 60-year age group toward the ≥ 80-year age group (2 vs 3 vs 4 months). There was no significant difference seen between the groups in terms of complications and reoperations except in immediate postoperative complications (5.3% vs 4.8% vs 14%).

CONCLUSIONS

Although in this study minimally invasive decompression led to less and slower improvement in patients ≥ 80 years of age compared with their younger counterparts, there was significant improvement compared with the preoperative baseline.

Recovery Kinetics After Commonly Performed Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery Procedures

STUDY DESIGN

Single-center, multisurgeon, retrospective review.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the timing of return to commonly performed activities following minimally invasive spine surgery. Identify preoperative factors associated with these outcomes.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Studies have reported return to activities with open techniques, but the precise timing of when patients return to these activities after minimally invasive surgery remains uncertain.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients who underwent either minimally invasive lumbar laminectomy (MI-L) or minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) were included. Patient-reported outcome measures, return to drive, return to work, and discontinuation of opioids data were reviewed. Regression was conducted to identify factors associated with return to driving by 15 days, return to work by 30 days, and for discontinuing opioids by 15 days. A composite group analysis was also performed for patients who returned to all three activities by 30 days.

RESULTS

In total, 123 MI-L patients and 107 MI-TLIF patients were included. Overall, 88.8% of MI-L patients and 96.4% of MI-TLIF patients returned to driving in 11 and 18.5 days, respectively. In all, 91.9% of MI-L patients and 85.7% of MI-TLIF patients returned to work in 14 and 25 days. In all, 88.7% of MI-L patients and 92.6% of MI-TLIF patients discontinued opioids in a median of seven and 11 days. Overall, 96.2% of MI-L patients and 100% of MI-TLIF patients returned to all three activities, with a median of 27 and 31 days, respectively. Male sex [odds ratio (OR)=3.57] and preoperative 12-Item Short Form Physical Component Score (OR=1.08) are associated with return to driving by 15 days. Male sex (OR=3.23) and preoperative 12-Item Short Form Physical Component Score (OR=1.07) are associated with return to work by 30 days. Preoperative Visual Analog Scale back was associated with decreased odds of discontinuing opioids by 15 days (OR=0.84).

CONCLUSION

Most patients return to activity following MI-L and MI-TLIF. These findings serve as an important compass for preoperative counseling.

Robotics Reduces Radiation Exposure in Minimally Invasive Lumbar Fusion Compared With Navigation

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort.

OBJECTIVE

To compare robotics and navigation for minimally invasive elective lumbar fusion in terms of radiation exposure and time demand.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Although various studies have been conducted to demonstrate the benefits of both navigation and robotics over fluoroscopy in terms of radiation exposure, literature is lacking in studies comparing robotics versus navigation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients who underwent elective one-level or two-level minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) by a single surgeon using navigation (Stryker SpineMask) or robotics (ExcelsiusGPS) were included (navigation 2017-2019, robotics 2019-2021, resulting in prospective cohorts of consecutive patients for each modality). All surgeries had the intraoperative computed tomography workflow. The two cohorts were compared for radiation exposure [fluoroscopy time and radiation dose: image capture, surgical procedure, and overall) and time demand (time for setup and image capture, operative time, and total operating room (OR) time].

RESULTS

A total of 244 patients (robotics 111, navigation 133) were included. The two cohorts were similar in terms of baseline demographics, primary/revision surgeries, and fusion levels. For one-level TLIF, total fluoroscopy time, total radiation dose, and % of radiation for surgical procedure were significantly less with robotics compared with navigation (20 vs. 25 s, P <0.001; 38 vs. 42 mGy, P =0.05; 58% vs. 65%, P =0.021). Although time for setup and image capture was significantly less with robotics (22 vs. 25 min, P <0.001) and operative time was significantly greater with robotics (103 vs. 93 min, P <0.001), there was no significant difference in the total OR time (145 vs. 141 min, P =0.25). Similar findings were seen for two-level TLIF as well.

CONCLUSION

Robotics for minimally invasive TLIF, compared with navigation, leads to a significant reduction in radiation exposure both to the surgeon and patient, with no significant difference in the total OR time.

Beyond Placement of Pedicle Screws - New Applications for Robotics in Spine Surgery: A Multi-Surgeon, Single-Institution Experience

Interest in robotic-assisted spine surgery has grown as surgeon comfort and technology has evolved to maximize benefits of time saving and precision. However, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has currently only approved robotics to assist in determining the ideal trajectory for pedicle screw placement after extensive research supporting its efficacy and efficiency. To be considered a durable and effective option, robotics need to expand beyond the indication of just placing pedicle screws. This article aims to illustrate a multi-surgeon, single-institution experience with unique applications of robotic technologies in spine surgery. We will explore accessing Kambin's Triangle in percutaneous transforaminal interbody fusion (percLIF), iliac fixation in metastatic cancer, and sacroiliac (SI) fusions. Each of these topics will be covered in depth with associated background information and subsequent discussion. We show that with proper understanding of its limitations, robots can help surgeons perform difficult surgeries in a safe manner.

Development and Initial Internal Validation of a Novel Classification System for Perioperative Expectations Following Minimally Invasive Degenerative Lumbar Spine Surgery

STUDY DESIGN

This was a prospective consecutive clinical cohort study.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of our study was to develop and provide an initial internal validation of a novel classification system that can help surgeons and patients better understand their postoperative course following the particular minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and approach that is utilized.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Surgeons and patients are often attracted to the option of minimally invasive spine surgery because of the perceived improvement in recovery time and postsurgical pain. A classification system based on the impact of the surgery and surgical approach(es) on postoperative recovery can be particularly helpful.

METHODS

Six hundred thirty-one patients who underwent MIS lumbar/thoracolumbar surgery for degenerative conditions of the spine were included. Perioperative outcomes-operative time, estimated blood loss, postsurgical length of stay (LOS), 90-day complications, postoperative day zero narcotic requirement [in Morphine Milligram Equivalent (MME)], and need for intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV PCA).

RESULTS

Postoperative LOS and postoperative narcotic use were deemed most clinically relevant, thus selected as primary outcomes. Type of surgery was significantly associated with all outcomes (P<0.0001), except intraoperative complications. Number of levels for fusion was significantly associated with operative time, in-hospital complications, 24 hours oral MME, and the need for IV PCA and LOS (P<0.0001). Number of surgical approaches for lumbar fusion was significantly associated with operative time, 24 hours oral MME, need for IV PCA and LOS (P<0.001). Based on these parameters, the following classification system ("Qureshi-Louie classification" for MIS degenerative lumbar surgery) was devised: (1) Decompression-only; (2) Fusion-1 and 2 levels, 1 approach; (3) Fusion-1 level, 2 approaches; (4) Fusion-2 levels, 2 approaches; (5) Fusion-3+ levels, 2 approaches.

CONCLUSIONS

We present a novel classification system and initial internal validation to describe the perioperative expectations following various MIS surgeries in the degenerative lumbar spine. This initial description serves as the basis for ongoing external validation.

Facet Violation With Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Placement: Impact of 3D Navigation and Facet Orientation

Background: The gold standard for percutaneous pedicle screw placement is 2-dimensional (2D) fluoroscopy. Data are sparse on the accuracy of 3-dimensional (3D) navigation percutaneous screw placement in minimally invasive spine procedures. Objective: We sought to compare a single surgeon's percutaneous pedicle screw placement accuracy using 2D fluoroscopy versus 3D navigation, as well as to investigate the effect of facet orientation on facet violation when using 2D fluoroscopy. Methods: We conducted a retrospective radiographic study of consecutive cohort of patients who underwent percutaneous lumbar instrumentation using either 2D fluoroscopy or 3D navigation. All procedures were performed by a single surgeon at 2 academic institutions between 2011 and 2018. Radiographic measurement of screw accuracy was assessed using a postoperative computed tomographic scan. The primary outcome was facet violation, and secondary outcomes were endplate/tip breaches, the Gertzbein-Robbins classification for cortical breaches, and the Simplified Screw Accuracy grade. Statistical comparisons were made between screws placed using 2D fluoroscopy versus 3D navigation. Axial facet angles were also measured to correlate with facet violation rates. Results: In the 138 patients included, 376 screws were placed with fluoroscopy and 193 with navigation. Superior (unfused) level facet violation was higher with 2D fluoroscopy than with 3D navigation (9% vs 0.5%), which comprises the main cause for poor screw placement. Axial facet angles exceeding 45° at L4 and 60° at L5 were correlated with facet violations. Conclusion: This retrospective study found that 3D navigation is associated with lower facet violation rates in percutaneous lumbar pedicle screw placement when compared with 2D fluoroscopy. These findings suggest that 3D navigation may be of particular value when facet joints are coronally oriented.

Does interbody cage lordosis impact actual segmental lordosis achieved in minimally invasive lumbar spine fusion?

OBJECTIVE

In an effort to prevent loss of segmental lordosis (SL) with minimally invasive interbody fusions, manufacturers have increased the amount of lordosis that is built into interbody cages. However, the relationship between cage lordotic angle and actual SL achieved intraoperatively remains unclear. The purpose of this study was to determine if the lordotic angle manufactured into an interbody cage impacts the change in SL during minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) done for degenerative pathology.

METHODS

The authors performed a retrospective review of a single-surgeon database of adult patients who underwent primary LIF between April 2017 and December 2018. Procedures were performed for 1-2-level lumbar degenerative disease using contemporary MIS techniques, including transforaminal LIF (TLIF), lateral LIF (LLIF), and anterior LIF (ALIF). Surgical levels were classified on lateral radiographs based on the cage lordotic angle (6°-8°, 10°-12°, and 15°-20°) and the position of the cage in the disc space (anterior vs posterior). Change in SL was the primary outcome of interest. Subgroup analyses of the cage lordotic angle within each surgical approach were also conducted.

RESULTS

A total of 116 surgical levels in 98 patients were included. Surgical approaches included TLIF (56.1%), LLIF (32.7%), and ALIF (11.2%). There were no differences in SL gained by cage lordotic angle (2.7° SL gain with 6°-8° cages, 1.6° with 10°-12° cages, and 3.4° with 15°-20° cages, p = 0.581). Subgroup analysis of LLIF showed increased SL with 15° cages only (p = 0.002). The change in SL was highest after ALIF (average increase 9.8° in SL vs 1.8° in TLIF vs 1.8° in LLIF, p < 0.001). Anterior position of the cage in the disc space was also associated with a significantly greater gain in SL (4.2° vs -0.3°, p = 0.001), and was the only factor independently correlated with SL gain (p = 0.016).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with cage lordotic angle, cage position and approach play larger roles in the generation of SL in 1-2-level MIS for lumbar degenerative disease.

Does minimally invasive spine surgery improve outcomes in the obese population? A retrospective review of 1442 degenerative lumbar spine surgeries

OBJECTIVE

The effect of obesity on outcomes in minimally invasive surgery (MIS) approaches to posterior lumbar surgery is not well characterized. The authors aimed to determine if there was a difference in operative variables and complication rates in obese patients who underwent MIS versus open approaches in posterior spinal surgery, as well as between obese and nonobese patients undergoing MIS approaches.

METHODS

A retrospective review of all consecutive patients who underwent posterior lumbar surgery from 2013 to 2016 at a single institution was performed. The primary outcome measure was postoperative complications. Secondary outcome measures included estimated blood loss (EBL), operative time, the need for revision, and hospital length of stay (LOS); readmission and disposition were also reviewed. Obese patients who underwent MIS were compared with those who underwent an open approach. Additionally, obese patients who underwent an MIS approach were compared with nonobese patients. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were carried out between the groups.

RESULTS

In total, 423 obese patients (57.0% decompression and 43.0% fusion) underwent posterior lumbar MIS. When compared with 229 obese patients (56.8% decompression and 43.2% fusion) who underwent an open approach, patients in both the obese and nonobese groups who underwent MIS experienced significantly decreased EBL, LOS, operative time, and surgical site infections (SSIs). Of the nonobese patients, 538 (58.4% decompression and 41.6% fusion) underwent MIS procedures. When compared with nonobese patients, obese patients who underwent MIS procedures had significantly increased LOS, EBL, operative time, revision rates, complications, and readmissions in the decompression group. In the fusion group, only LOS and disposition were significantly different.

CONCLUSIONS

Obese patients have poorer outcomes after posterior lumbar MIS when compared with nonobese patients. The use of an MIS technique can be of benefit, as it decreased EBL, operative time, LOS, and SSIs for posterior decompression with or without instrumented fusion in obese patients.

Inferior Articular Process Fracture in a Collegiate Athlete Causing Back Pain: A Case Report of Surgical Treatment

CASE

A 20-year-old male athlete presented with 8 months of low back pain. Conservative management had been unsuccessful. He noted lumbar spine pain with extension, and imaging showed features of an L4-5 inferior articular facet tip fracture. The fragment was excised, he returned to college lacrosse and is without symptoms at the 9-month follow-up.

CONCLUSION

In similar cases with facet fragments, we would recommend a full workup and attempt nonoperative therapy. If not improved and a diagnostic injection provides near-complete relief, then resection of the facet fragment can be discussed as a potentially effective and conservative surgical option.

Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion With a Single Oblique PEEK Cage and Posterior Supplemental Fixation

BACKGROUND

To demonstrate the feasibility of an endoscopically assisted minimally invasive surgery transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) and to study clinical outcomes with the use of a static oblique bullet-shaped cannulated poly-ether-ether-ketone (PEEK) lumbar interbody fusion cage in conjunction with platelet enriched plasma infused allograft cancellous chips and posterior supplemental fixation.

METHODS

In this retrospective study of 43 patients who underwent endoscopically assisted MIS-TLIF for spondylolisthesis (53.5%) and stenosis (46.3%), the Oswestry Disability Index, the visual analog scale (VAS) for back and leg pain, and the modified Macnab criteria were used as primary clinical outcome measures. Clinical outcomes were cross-tabulated against fusion grade using the Bridwell classification of interbody fusion.

RESULTS

The majority of patients (90.7%) had excellent (8/43; 18.6%) and good (31/43; 72.1%) Macnab outcomes. There were significant VAS back score reductions from an average preoperative values of 8.9070 to a postoperative VAS score of 3.8605, and a score of 2.7674 at final follow-up (P < .0001). The reductions in the VAS leg scores were also significant from preoperative score of 5.58 to a postoperative value of 2.16, and a final follow-up score of 1.67 (P < .0001); the Oswestry Disability Index score went from a preoperative value of 54.4 to 23.3 postoperatively and 18.5 at the final follow-up (P < .0001). The vast majority of patients (92.9%) with Bridwell grade I fusion had excellent and good Macnab outcomes (P = .027).

CONCLUSIONS

The authors recommend the use of an endoscope as an adjunct to MIS-TLIF, a minimally invasive spinal surgery technique in which many surgeons may be well versed and have a great deal of experience. Clinical outcomes with the endoscopic interbody fusion procedure with a static PEEK cage in conjunction with platelet-enriched bone allograft were favorable.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Feasibility study.

Complications associated with L4-5 anterior retroperitoneal trans-psoas interbody fusion: a single institution series

Background

Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF), first described in the literature in 2006 by Ozgur et al., involves direct access to the lateral disc space via a retroperitoneal trans-psoas tubular approach. Neuromonitoring is vital during this approach since the surgical corridor traverses the psoas muscle where the lumbar plexus lies, risking injury to the lumbosacral plexus that could result in sensory or motor deficits. The risk of neurologic injury is especially higher at L4-5 due to the anatomy of the plexus at this level. Here we report our single-center clinical experience with L4-5 LLIF.

Methods

A retrospective chart review of all patients who underwent an L4-5 LLIF between May 2016 and March 2019 was performed. Baseline demographics and clinical characteristics, such as body mass index (BMI), medical comorbidities, surgical history, tobacco status, operative time and blood loss, length of stay (LOS), and post-op complications were recorded.

Results

A total of 220 (58% female and 42% male) cases were reviewed. The most common presenting pathology was spondylolisthesis. The average age, BMI, operative time, blood loss, and LOS were 64.6 years, 29 kg/m², 214 min, 75 cc, and 2.5 days respectively. A review of post-operative neurologic deficits revealed 31.4% transient hip flexor weakness and 4.5% quadricep weakness on the approach side. At 3-week follow-up, 9.1% of patients experienced mild hip flexor weakness (4 or 4+/5), 0.9% reported mild quadricep weakness, and 9.5% reported anterior thigh dysesthesias; 93.2% of patients were discharged home and 2.3% were readmitted within the first 30 days post discharge. Female sex, higher BMI and longer operative time were associated with hip flexor weakness.

Conclusions

LLIF at L4-5 is a safe, feasible, and versatile approach to the lumbar spine with an acceptable approach-related sensory and motor neurologic complication rates.

How do high preoperative pain scores impact the clinical course and outcomes for patients undergoing lumbar microdiscectomy?

OBJECTIVE

Preoperative pain assessment is often used to gauge the amount of disability in patients with lumbar disc herniation. How high preoperative pain scores impact the clinical course and outcomes of patients after lumbar microdiscectomy is not always clear. Here, the authors aimed to determine whether patients reporting higher preoperative pain scores have worse outcomes after lumbar microdiscectomy than those reporting lower preoperative scores.

METHODS

The authors performed a retrospective review of patients with symptomatic lumbar disc herniations that had failed to improve with nonsurgical methods and who had undergone tubular lumbar microdiscectomy. Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) scores had been collected in the preoperative and postoperative period. The anatomical severity of disease was graded based on lumbar disc health (Pfirrmann classification), facet degeneration, thecal sac cross-sectional area, and disc herniation grade. Data on each patient's narcotic consumption and length of stay were collected. A Student t-test and chi-square test were used to compare patients with high preoperative pain scores (HP cohort) and those with lower preoperative scores (non-HP cohort).

RESULTS

One hundred thirty-eight patients were included in this analysis. The 47 patients in the HP cohort had taken more preoperative opioids (12.0 ± 21.2 vs 3.6 ± 11.1 morphine equivalent doses, p = 0.01). However, there was no statistically significant difference in Pfirrmann classification (p > 0.15), facet grade (p > 0.11), thecal sac cross-sectional area (p = 0.45), or disc herniation grade (p = 0.39) between the HP and non-HP cohorts. The latter cohort had statistically significant higher preoperative PROMIS scores (36.5 ± 7.0 vs 29.9 ± 6.4, p < 0.001), SF-12 mental component summary scores (48.7 ± 11.5 vs 38.9 ± 16.1, p < 0.001), and SF-12 physical component summary scores (PCS; 32.4 ± 8.6 vs 27.5 ± 10.0, p = 0.005), but a lower Oswestry Disability Index (56.4 ± 22.1 vs 35.4 ± 15.5, p < 0.001). There were only two time points after microdiscectomy when the HP cohort had worse HRQOL scores: at the 2-week follow-up for SF-12 PCS scores (32.4 ± 8.6 vs 29.3 ± 7.1, p = 0.03) and the 12-week follow-up for PROMIS scores (45.2 ± 9.5 vs 39.5 ± 7.1, p = 0.01). All other postoperative HRQOL measurements were similar between the two cohorts (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

A patient's perceived severity of disease often does not correlate with the actual clinical pathology on imaging. Although patients who report high pain and have a symptomatic lumbar disc herniation may describe their pain as more extreme, they should be counseled that the outcomes of microdiscectomy are positive.

Emerging Spine Care Trends and Innovations

The spine is an anchoring structure that is the base for mechanical motion of the body and a protector of neuroelements. Spinal disorders continue to plague generations with issues. Management options continue to evolve, allowing for operative and nonoperative pathways to treat underlying causes. Positive patient outcomes and long-term relief are achieved through evidence-based practice and innovative trends. The future of spine care will continue to push boundaries, allowing patients to return to activity at a much faster rate, with decreased restrictions and lower rates of future complications.

Risk factors predicting less favorable outcomes in endoscopic lumbar discectomies

Background

Endoscopic lumbar discectomy was among the first minimally invasive spine procedures commonly performed. As such, all the benefits of minimal invasion were seen, including less pain, less soft tissue destruction, and faster recovery. While outcomes compare favorably to micro and open discectomy, not all patients fare equally well. This paper examines independent risk factors to assess their correlation to suboptimal outcomes after endoscopic lumbar discectomy.

Methods

Retrospective analysis of clinical outcomes of 55 consecutive patients treated with endoscopic discectomy between June 2018 and March 2019 by the author. Primary outcome measures were postoperative reductions of visual analog score (VAS) for back and leg pain modified MacNab criteria as well as time to narcotic independence. Risk factors examined included smoking, facet disease, adjacent segments disc degeneration, obesity, alcohol abuse, and psychiatric illness.

Results

There were 31 males and 24 females with a mean age of 41.76±12.53. Most patients suffered from contained herniations (49.1%) followed by extruded herniations (18.2%). Follow-up ranged from 6-18 months. The most common surgical levels were L5-S1 level (30.9%), L4-S1 (29.1%), and L4-5 (25.5%). The mean return to work (RTW) was 23.83±26.01 weeks. The average body mass index (BMI) was 29.11±4.75. The average time for narcotic independence was 9.64±7.29 days. MacNab outcomes showed that 47.3% (26/55) had excellent, 36.4% good (20/55), 12.7% fair (7/55), and 3.6% had poor (2/55), respectively. The VAS scores for the back (7.69 to 2.65) and leg (6.78 to 2.65) pain reduced significantly (P<0.0001). Smoking (P=0.048), psychiatric disease (P=0.029), disc herniations larger than 10 mm, facet disease, obesity (BMI >30), diabetes, and alcohol abuse was associated with fair and poor MacNab outcomes.

Conclusions

Endoscopic lumbar discectomy safely and reliably reduces axial pain and radiculopathy from lumbar disc herniations. Risk factors associated with incomplete pain relief are large herniations, obesity, instability, smoking, advanced facet degeneration, and decreased ability to cope with the surgery.

Using minimally invasive techniques adds to the value equation for select patients

Conditions of the spine are one of the most prevalent causes of global disability, and result in a considerable portion of total health expenditures. Surgical treatment of the spine has been demonstrated in multiple studies to be a cost-effective treatment option for many patients, especially with continuing improvements in surgical technique and instrumentation. Minimally invasive spine surgery (MISS), in particular, has evolved as a valuable option in treating certain patients. Numerous studies have analyzed minimally invasive techniques in regards to cost-effectiveness and other purported advantages. These advantages include conduciveness to outpatient settings, better perioperative and immediate post-operative benefits, and faster time to recovery. This article will describe the current literature on the advantages of MISS, specifically in regards to value and cost savings.

Patient Perceptions of Minimally Invasive Versus Open Spine Surgery

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective questionnaire.

OBJECTIVE

To describe patient perceptions of minimally invasive spine (MIS) versus open surgery, and to determine which factors are most heavily considered by the patient when choosing between approaches.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

MIS surgery has increased in popularity due to proposed advantages in the perioperative and immediate postoperative periods. However, patient preferences and understanding with regard to the differences between MIS and open surgery have not been elucidated.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An anonymous questionnaire consisting of 30 questions was administered to patients scheduled to see either an MIS surgeon or an open spine surgeon for a clinical evaluation from 2016 to 2017. Six questions asked about patient demographics and medical history. Nine questions asked respondents to rate the importance of several criteria when deciding between MIS and open surgery. In total, 15 multiple choice and free response questions asked respondents about their perceptions of MIS versus open surgery with regard to surgical and physician characteristics.

RESULTS

In total, 326 patients completed the survey. The 3 most important criteria for patients when choosing between open and MIS surgery were: long-term outcomes, surgeon's recommendation, and complication risk. When compared with MIS surgery, the majority of patients perceived open surgery to be more painful (83.8%), have increased complication risk (78.5%), have increased recovery time (89.3%), have increased costs (68.1%), and require heavier sedation (62.6%). If required to have spine surgery in the future, the majority of both patient groups would prefer a minimally invasive approach (80.0%).

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term outcomes, surgeon's recommendation, and complication risk were the most important criteria identified by patients when choosing between open and MIS surgery. Patients also perceived MIS surgery to have advantages over open surgery with regard to postoperative pain, complication risk, recovery time, cost, and anesthesia requirement. Most patients seem to prefer a minimally invasive approach to their treatment.

Ninety-Day Reimbursements for Primary Single-Level Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion From Commercial and Medicare Data

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective, economic analysis.

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the distribution of 90-day payments for a primary single-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion from Commercial payers and Medicare.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Episode-based bundled payments aim to align incentives of all health care providers toward the common goal of high quality and economic health care. Understanding the evolving reimbursement models for spine surgery will require knowledge on existing payments, distribution, and variation. Also, it will help identify areas for cost reduction. This is currently not known for a primary single-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion.

METHODS

Administrative claims data were used to study reimbursements from Commercial payers (2007-Q3 2015), Medicare Advantage (2007-Q3 2015), and Medicare (2005-2012) for a primary single-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Distribution of payments among various service providers was studied. In addition to descriptive analysis, variation between regions and payers was studied by a one-way analysis of variance and post hoc Tukey test.

RESULTS

Average hospital costs comprise 74.2% to 77% of the total payments, followed by surgeon's fees which accounted for 12.8% to 13.7%. Overall burden of readmissions/revisions was 2.1% to 2.7%, but for the readmitted patient it constitutes 25% to 54% of the 90-day payment. Inpatient surgery had significantly higher facility costs than outpatient surgery (P = 0.02). The average 90-day payment amount was $51,465, $26,234, and $25,501 for Commercial payers, Medicare Advantage, and Medicare, respectively. There was some regional variation, however not consistent among different payers.

CONCLUSION

Hospital costs constitute the majority share of 90-day payments, which can be reduced by performing surgery in the outpatient setting. Reducing hospital costs and readmissions can lower the financial burden associated with this common spine procedure.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

Minimally invasive versus open Transforaminal lumbar Interbody fusion in obese patients: a meta-analysis

Background

Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) has been employed in increasing cases compared with open TLIF (Open-TLIF). However, it is uncertain whether the advantages of MI-TLIF can also be specifically applied in obese patients. Therefore, the current study was thereby carried out aiming to compare the outcomes of MI-TLIF with those of Open-TLIF in obese patients with lumbar degenerative diseases.

Methods

Electronic databases were systemically retrieved from construction to May 2017. Meanwhile, the odds ratio (OR), mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined.

Results

A total of 7 observational cohort studies were enrolled into the current meta-analysis. The results indicated that, compared with Open-TLIF group, MI-TLIF could remarkably reduce the operative time (P = 0.002), intraoperative blood loss (P < 0.001), postoperative drainage (P = 0.01), length of stay (P < 0.001) and incidence of complications (P < 0.001). In addition, MI-TLIF could also lead to markedly lower early back pain-Visual Analog Scale (BP-VAS) score than that of Open-TLIF (P < 0.001), but no statistically significant differences were found in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), late BP-VAS, early leg pain-VAS (LP-VAS) and late LP-VAS scores.

Conclusion

MI-TLIF may be a more preferred choice for obese patients undergoing spinal surgery. However, differences in the long-term functional and pain outcomes between MI-TLIF and Open-TLIF remain a source of controversy, which should be further verified in future randomized-control trials.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12891-018-1937-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Lumbar Microlaminectomy vs Traditional Laminectomy

Lumbar microlaminectomy is associated with shorter hospitalization and lower cost within the VA system.

Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery in Small Animals

Minimally invasive spine surgery (MISS) seems to have many benefits for human patients and is currently used for various minor and major spine procedures. For MISS, a change in access strategy to the target location is necessary and it requires intraoperative imaging, special instrumentation, and magnification. Few veterinary studies have evaluated MISS for canine patients for spinal decompression procedures. This article discusses the general requirements for MISS and how these can be applied to veterinary spinal surgery. The current veterinary MISS literature is reviewed and suggestions are made on how to apply MISS to different spinal locations.

Minimally Invasive Versus Open Laminectomy/Discectomy, Transforaminal Lumbar, and Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusions: A Systematic Review

Minimally invasive spine surgeries (MISS) are becoming increasingly favored as alternatives to open spine procedures because of the reduced blood loss, postoperative pain, and recovery time. Studies have shown mixed results regarding the efficacy and safety of minimally invasive procedures compared to the traditional, open counterparts. The objectives of this systematic analysis are to compare clinical outcomes between the three MISS and open procedures: (1) laminectomy/discectomy, (2) transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), and (3) posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). The Cochrane and PubMed databases were queried according to the preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. The primary outcome measures included the visual analog scale (VAS), the Oswestry disability index (ODI), and blood loss. A total of 32 studies were included in the analysis. Of the three procedures investigated, only MISS TLIF showed significantly improved VAS for leg pain (p = 0.02), ODI (p = 0.05), and reduced blood loss (p = 0.005). MISS-laminectomy/discectomy, TLIF, and PLIF appear to be similar in terms of postoperative pain and perioperative blood loss. MISS TLIF is perhaps more effective in specific outcome measures and results in less intraoperative blood loss than open TLIF.

Anatomy of psoas muscle innervation: Cadaveric study

Hip flexion weakness is relatively common after lateral transpsoas surgery. Persistent weakness may result from injury to the innervation of the psoas major muscles (PMMs); however, anatomical texts have conflicting descriptions of this innervation, and the branching pattern of the nerves within the psoas major, particularly relative to vertebral anatomy, has not been described. The authors dissected human cadavers to describe the branching pattern of nerves supplying the PMMs. Sixteen embalmed cadavers were dissected, and the fine branching pattern of the innervation to the PMM was studied in 24 specimens. The number of branches and width and length of each branch of nerves to the PMMs were quantified. Nerve branches innervating the PMMs arose from spinal nerve levels L1-L4, with an average of 6.3 ± 1.1 branches per muscle. The L1 nerve branch was the least consistently present, whereas L2 and L3 branches were the most robust, the most numerous, and always present. The nerve branches to the psoas major commonly crossed the intervertebral (IV) disc obliquely prior to ramification within the muscle; 76%, 80%, and 40% of specimens had a branch to the PMM cross the midportion of the L2-3, L3-4, and L4-5 IV discs, respectively. The PMMs are segmentally innervated from the L2-L4 ventral rami branches, where these branches course obliquely across the L2-3, L3-4, and L4-5 IV discs. Knowledge of the mapping of nerve branches to the PMMs may reduce injury and the incidence of persistent weak hip flexion during lateral transpsoas surgery. Clin. Anat. 30:479-486, 2017. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Minimally Invasive Surgery Versus Open Surgery Spinal Fusion for Spondylolisthesis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE

Compare minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and open surgery (OS) spinal fusion outcomes for the treatment of spondylolisthesis.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

OS spinal fusion is an interventional option for patients with spinal disease who have failed conservative therapy. During the past decade, MIS approaches have increasingly been used, with potential benefits of reduced surgical trauma, postoperative pain, and length of hospital stay. However, current literature consists of single-center, low-quality studies with no review of approaches specific to spondylolisthesis only.

METHODS

This first systematic review of the literature regarding MIS and OS spinal fusion for spondylolisthesis treatment was performed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines for article identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion. Electronic literature search of Medline/PubMed, Cochrane, EMBASE, and Scopus databases yielded 2489 articles. These articles were screened against established criteria for inclusion into this study.

RESULTS

A total of five retrospective and five prospective articles with a total of 602 patients were found. Reported spondylolisthesis grades were I and II only. Overall, MIS was associated with less intraoperative blood loss (mean difference [MD], -331.04 mL; 95% confidence interval [CI], -490.48 to -171.59; P < 0.0001) and shorter length of hospital stay (MD, -1.74 days; 95% CI, -3.04 to -0.45; P = 0.008). There was no significant difference overall between MIS and OS in terms of functional or pain outcomes. Subgroup analysis of prospective studies revealed MIS had greater operative time (MD, 19.00 minutes; 95% CI, 0.90 to 37.10; P = 0.04) and lower final functional scores (weighted MD, -1.84; 95% CI, -3.61 to -0.07; P = 0.04) compared with OS.

CONCLUSION

Current data suggests spinal fusion by MIS is a safe and effective approach to treat grade I and grade II spondylolisthesis. Moreover, although prospective trials associate MIS with better functional outcomes, longer-term and randomized trials are warranted to validate any association found in this study.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

2.