Search

Background: Surgical treatment for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis has been shown to provide better long-term outcomes than conservative treatment. However, there is variation in surgical approaches employed by surgeons. This study investigates current surgical practice patterns and compares perioperative outcomes of 3 common surgical treatments for this pathology. Methods: A survey was administered to surgeons who attended the Lumbar Spine Research Society (LSRS) meeting in 2014. Data were extracted from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) from 2005 to 2014 to characterize the same responses. The 2 data sets were compared. Perioperative outcomes of those in the ACS-NSQIP posterior fusion subcohorts were characterized and compared. Results: Posterior surgical approaches utilized by surgeons who responded to the LSRS survey were similar to those captured by ACS-NSQIP where 72% of those with degenerative spondylolisthesis were fused. Of those that were fused, 8% had an uninstrumented posterior fusion, 33% had an instrumented posterior fusion, and 59% had an instrumented posterior fusion with interbody. On multivariate analysis, there was no difference in risk of postoperative adverse events, readmission, or length of stay between these 3 common types of fusion. Conclusions: Practice patterns for the posterior management of lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis were similar between LSRS survey responses and ACS-NSQIP data. The ACS-NSQIP perioperative outcome measures assessed were similar regardless of surgical technique. These findings highlight that cost-benefit considerations and longer-term outcomes have to be the measures by which surgical technique is chosen for degenerative spondylolisthesis.

Background: Although publication rates from multiple orthopedic research conferences have been published in the literature, the publication rates of abstracts presented at the Lumbar Spine Research Society (LSRS) meetings have never been reported. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the publication rates from the LSRS annual meeting years 2008–2012 and then to compare those rates with that of other spine research society meetings. Methods: Podium presentations from 2008 to 2012 and poster presentations from 2010 to 2012 were reviewed. For each presentation, a PubMed search was performed to determine if a full-text publication existed. χ2 tests were used to compare LSRS publication rates to those of other spine meetings. In addition, impact of published articles was evaluated by average citation count and average journal impact factor. Results: From 2008 to 2012, a total of 332 podium and poster presentations were identified. The overall publication rate was 55.1% (183/332). For podium presentations, this was greatest in 2012 (66.0%) and lowest in 2008 (51.5%). For poster presentations, this was greatest in 2012 (53.6%) and lowest in 2010 (25.0%). The publication rate of presentations is statistically greater than the publication rates of Eurospine (37.8%, P Conclusions: While LSRS is a relatively young society, these findings point to the high quality of presentations at this scientific meeting. These findings speak to the scientific rigor of presentations at LSRS. Clinical Relevance: This study helps clinicians and scientists gauge the quality of a research meeting and make informed choices on which gatherings to attend.