Search

Abstract Background Lumbar disc herniation (LDH) is a common problem. When surgical treatment is required, the intervention is typically decompression without fusion. Successful return-to-work (RTW) is a standard expectation with these limited procedures. Occasionally, the size or location of the disc herniation suggests the need for fusion, but the inability to RTW is a significant concern in these cases. The purpose of this study is to determine if the addition of lumbar fusion, as compared to decompression alone, will substantially diminish RTW in patients with lumbar disc herniation. Methods This is a longitudinal cohort study using prospectively collected data from the Quality and Outcomes Database (QOD). Patients with LDH, eligible to RTW (not retired, a student, or on disability) with complete 12-month follow-up data, were identified. Standard demographic and surgical variables, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), and RTW status at 3 and 12 months were collected. Results Of the 5062 patients identified, 4560 (90%) had decompression alone and 502 (10%) had a concurrent fusion. Age and gender were similar in the two groups. The fusion group had worse back pain (NRS 6.52 vs. 5.96) and less leg pain (6.31 vs. 7.01) at baseline compared to the no fusion group. Statistically significant improvement in all PROs was seen in both groups. RTW at 3 months post-op was seen in 85% of decompression cases and 66% of cases with supplemental fusion. At 12 months post-op, RTW increased to 93% and 82%, respectively. Conclusion The need for fusion in LDH cases is unusual, seen in only 10% of cases in this series. The addition of fusion decreased the RTW rate from 85 to 66% at 3 months and from 93 to 82% at 12 months post-op. While the difference is significant, the ultimate deterioration in RTW may be less than anticipated. A reasonable RTW rate can still be expected in the rare patient who requires fusion as part of their treatment for LDH.

Background: Controversy exists regarding the ability of posterior (transforaminal) lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF/TLIF) to achieve lordosis. We hypothesized that an interbody device (IBD) designed for positioning in the anterior disc space produces greater lordosis than IBDs designed for straight-in positioning. The purpose of this study is to determine if using either an anterior-position or straight-in position IBD design were associated with successful achievement of postoperative lordosis. Methods: A consecutive series of patients undergoing a undergoing a single-level, posterior open midline (transforaminal) lumbar interbody fusion procedure for degenerative spine conditions during a time period when the two types of interbody devices were being used at surgeon discretion were identified from a multi-surgeon academic training center. Patient demographics and radiographic measures including surgical level lordosis (SLL), anterior disc height, middle disc height, posterior disc height, IBD height, and IBD insertion depth were measured on preop, immediate postop, and one-year postop standing radiographs using PACS. Group comparison and regression analysis were performed using SPSS. Results: Sixty-one patients were included (n=37 anterior, n=34 straight-in). Mean age was 59.8±8.7 years, 32 (52%) were female. There was no difference between IBD type (anterior vs. straight-in) for mean Pre-op SLL (19±7° vs. 20±6°, p=0.7), Post-op SLL (21±5° vs 21±6°, p=0.5), or Change in SLL (2±4° vs. 1±5°, p=0.2). Regression analysis showed that Pre-op SLL was the only variable associated with Change in SLL (Beta = negative 0.48, p=0.000). While the mean Change in SLL could be considered clinically insignificant, there was wide variability: from a loss of 9° to a gain of 13°. Gain of lordosis >5° only occurred when Pre-op SLL was 5° only occurred when Pre-op SLL was >21°. Conclusions: While group averages showed an insignificant change in segmental lordosis following a posterior (transforaminal) interbody fusion regardless of interbody device type, pre-operative lordosis was correlated with a clinically significant change in segmental lordosis. Preoperative hypolordotic discs were more likely to gain significant lordosis, while preoperative hyperlordotic discs were more likely to lose significant lordosis. Surgeon awareness of this tendency can help guide surgical planning and technique.

Objective: Posterior interbody fusion is commonly performed for degenerative lumbar conditions. A minimally invasive technique of midline exposure limited only to the facets and fixation with laterally directed cortical bone trajectory (CBT) screws was introduced with the intent of decreasing surgical morbidity. The purpose of this study was to determine if posterior interbody fusion with this limited midline exposure will have less blood loss and shorter operative times (i.e., can be considered minimally invasive) compared to traditional open transforaminal interbody fusion. Methods: A consecutive single-surgeon series of patients who underwent posterior interbody fusion with either a navigated, midline only exposure (MidLIF) or full, traditional open, exposure of the transverse processes with a posterolateral fusion (open TLIF) were identified. Demographic, peri-operative data, patient reported outcomes (PROs), and reoperation/readmission rates were collected and compared. Results: There were 29 cases in the MidLIF and 27 in the open TLIF group. Both groups were similar with respect to surgical indications, age, BMI, gender, ASA grade and operative level. The MidLIF group had significantly lower estimated blood loss (266 vs. 446 cc, p = 0.003), shorter operative time (170 vs. 210 minutes, p = 0.003), and shorter length of hospital stay (2.9 vs. 3.7 days, p = 0.016) compared to the open TLIF group. A sub-analysis of single-level cases showed similar findings with significantly lower estimated blood loss (247 vs. 411 cc, p = 0.10), shorter operative time (159 vs. 199 min, p = 0.003), and shorter length of hospital stay (2.9 vs. 3.7 days, p = 0.023) in the MidLIF group. Patient reported outcomes at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 12 months and 24 months post-operative favored MidLIF with significantly greater ODI improvements at both 6 weeks and 12 months; and lower ODI and back pain at both 12 months and 24 months. Conclusions: MidLIF had lower blood loss and shorter operative time compared to the traditional open TLIF technique. These differences compare well to reported values in the literature for tubular minimally-invasive TLIF. Patient reported outcomes from 6 weeks to 24 months post-operative, hospital length of stay, and reoperation/readmission rates all favored MidLIF compared to traditional open TLIF.