Search

Objective The use of telemedicine has dramatically increased due to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Many neurosurgeons are now using telemedicine technologies for preoperative evaluations and routine outpatient visits. Our goal was to standardize the telemedicine motor neurologic examination, summarize the evidence surrounding clinical use of telehealth technologies, and discuss financial and legal considerations. Methods We identified a 12-member panel composed of spine surgeons, fellows, and senior residents at a single institution. We created an initial telehealth strength examination protocol based on published data and developed 10 agree/disagree statements summarizing the protocol. A blinded Delphi method was utilized to build consensus for each statement, defined as > 80% agreement and no significant disagreement using a 2-way binomial test (significance threshold of p < 0.05). Any statement that did not meet consensus was edited and iteratively resubmitted to the panel until consensus was achieved. In the final round, the panel was unblinded and the protocol was finalized. Results After the first round, 4/10 statements failed to meet consensus (< 80% agreement, and p = 0.031, p = 0.031, p = 0.003, and p = 0.031 statistical disagreement, respectively). The disagreement pertained to grading of strength of the upper (3/10 statements) and lower extremities (1/10 statement). The amended statements clarified strength grading, achieved consensus (> 80% agreement, p > 0.05 disagreement), and were used to create the final telehealth strength examination protocol. Conclusion The resulting protocol was used in our clinic to standardize the telehealth strength examination. This protocol, as well as our summary of telehealth clinical practice, should aid neurosurgical clinics in integrating telemedicine modalities into their practice.

Study Design: Retrospective review., Objective: The aim was to compare outcomes at 3 and 12 months for patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis treated with direct decompression (DD) versus indirect decompression (ID) techniques., Summary of Background Data: Debate persists regarding the optimal surgical strategy to treat lumbar spondylolisthesis. Novel techniques relying on ID have shown superior radiographic outcomes compared to DD, however, doubt remains regarding their effectiveness in achieving adequate decompression. Currently, there is a paucity of data comparing the clinical efficacy of DD to ID., Methods: The Quality Outcomes Database (QOD), a national, multicenter prospective spine registry, was queried for patients who underwent DD and ID between April 2013 and January 2019. Propensity scores for each treatment were estimated using logistic regression dependent on baseline covariates potentially associated with outcomes. The propensity scores were used to exclude nonsimilar patients. Multivariable regression analysis was performed with the treatment and covariate as independent variables and outcomes as dependent variables., Results: A total of 4163 patients were included in the DD group and 86 in the ID group. The ID group had significantly lower odds of having a longer hospital stay and for achieving 30% improvement in back and leg pain at 3 months. These trends were not statistically significant at 12 months. There were no differences in ED5D scores or Oswestry disability index 30% improvement scores at 3 or 12 months. ID patient had a significantly higher rate of undergoing a repeat operation at 3 months (4.9% vs. 1.5%, P =0.015)., Conclusion: Our study suggests that both DD and ID for the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis result in similar clinical outcomes, with the exception that those treated with ID experienced a lower reduction in back and leg pain at 3 months and a higher 3-month reoperation rate. This data can provide surgeons with additional information when counseling patients on the pros and cons of ID versus DD surgery., Competing Interests: Dr J.P. reports a past contract with NeuroPoint Alliance Inc. as well as consulting fees from Steamboat Orthopaedic Spine Institute and 3Spine. Dr K.A. reports a past contract with NeuroPoint Alliance Inc. as well as past consulting fees from Pacira and current consulting fees from NeuroSpinal Innovation Inc. Dr H.N. reports a past contract with NeuroPoint Alliance Inc. Dr S.L.Z. reports being an unaffiliated neurotrauma consultant for the National Football League. Dr B.F.S. reports educational consulting for Medical Device Business Services and a grant from Stryker Spine [R1160501]. The remaining authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: While surgical decompression is an important treatment modality for cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM), it remains unclear if the severity of preoperative myelopathy status affects potential benefit from surgical intervention and when maximum postoperative improvement is expected. This investigation sought to determine if retrospective analysis of prospectively collected patient-reported outcomes (PROs) following surgery for CSM differed when stratified by preoperative myelopathy status. Secondary objectives included assessment of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID)., Methods: A total of 1151 patients with CSM were prospectively enrolled from the Quality Outcomes Database at 14 US hospitals. Baseline demographics and PROs at baseline and 3 and 12 months were measured. These included the modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association (mJOA) score, Neck Disability Index (NDI), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) from the EQ-5D, and visual analog scale from the EQ-5D (EQ-VAS). Patients were stratified by preoperative myelopathy severity using criteria established by the AO Spine study group: mild (mJOA score 15-17), moderate (mJOA score 12-14), or severe (mJOA score < 12). Univariate analysis was used to identify demographic variables that significantly varied between myelopathy groups. Then, multivariate linear regression and linear mixed regression were used to model the effect of severity and time on PROs, respectively., Results: For NDI, EQ-VAS, and QALY, patients in all myelopathy cohorts achieved significant, maximal improvement at 3 months without further improvement at 12 months. For mJOA, moderate and severe myelopathy groups demonstrated significant, maximal improvement at 3 months, without further improvement at 12 months. The mild myelopathy group did not demonstrate significant change in mJOA score but did maintain and achieve higher PRO scores overall when compared with more advanced myelopathy cohorts. The MCID threshold was reached in all myelopathy cohorts at 3 months for mJOA, NDI, EQ-VAS, and QALY, with the only exception being mild myelopathy QALY at 3 months., Conclusions: As assessed by statistical regression and MCID analysis, patients with cervical myelopathy experience maximal improvement in their quality of life, neck disability, myelopathy score, and overall health by 3 months after surgical decompression, regardless of their baseline myelopathy severity. An exception was seen for the mJOA score in the mild myelopathy cohort, improvement of which may have been limited by ceiling effect. The data presented here will aid surgeons in patient selection, preoperative counseling, and expected postoperative time courses.

Objective: Neurosurgeons generate an enormous amount of data daily. Within these data lie rigorous, valid, and reproducible evidence. Such evidence can facilitate healthcare reform and improve quality of care. To measure the quality of care provided objectively, evaluating the safety and efficacy of clinical activities should occur in real time. Registries must be constructed and collected data analyzed with the precision akin to that of randomized clinical trials to accomplish this goal., Methods: The Quality Outcomes Database (QOD) Tumor Registry was launched in February 2019 with 8 sites in its initial 1-year pilot phase. The Tumor Registry was proposed by the AANS/CNS Tumor Section and approved by the QOD Scientific Committee in the fall of 2018. The initial pilot phase aimed to assess the feasibility of collecting outcomes data from 8 academic practices across the United States; these outcomes included length of stay, discharge disposition, and inpatient complications., Results: As of November 2019, 923 eligible patients have been entered, with the following subsets: intracranial metastasis (17.3%, n = 160), high-grade glioma (18.5%, n = 171), low-grade glioma (6%, n = 55), meningioma (20%, n = 184), pituitary tumor (14.3%, n = 132), and other intracranial tumor (24%, n = 221)., Conclusions: The authors have demonstrated here, as a pilot study, the feasibility of documenting demographic, clinical, operative, and patient-reported outcome characteristics longitudinally for 6 common intracranial tumor types.

Objective: Surgical treatment for degenerative spondylolisthesis has been proven to be clinically challenging and cost-effective. However, there is a range of thresholds that surgeons utilize for incorporating fusion in addition to decompressive laminectomy in these cases. This study investigates these surgeon- and site-specific factors by using the Quality Outcomes Database (QOD)., Methods: The QOD was queried for all cases that had undergone surgery for grade 1 spondylolisthesis from database inception to February 2019. In addition to patient-specific covariates, surgeon-specific covariates included age, sex, race, years in practice (0-10, 11-20, 21-30, > 30 years), and fellowship training. Site-specific variables included hospital location (rural, suburban, urban), teaching versus nonteaching status, and hospital type (government, nonfederal; private, nonprofit; private, investor owned). Multivariable regression and predictor importance analyses were performed to identify predictors of the treatment performed (decompression alone vs decompression and fusion). The model was clustered by site to account for site-specific heterogeneity in treatment selection., Results: A total of 12,322 cases were included with 1988 (16.1%) that had undergone decompression alone. On multivariable regression analysis clustered by site, adjusting for patient-level clinical covariates, no surgeon-specific factors were found to be significantly associated with the odds of selecting decompression alone as the surgery performed. However, sites located in suburban areas (OR 2.32, 95% CI 1.09-4.84, p = 0.03) were more likely to perform decompression alone (reference = urban). Sites located in rural areas had higher odds of performing decompression alone than hospitals located in urban areas, although the results were not statistically significant (OR 1.33, 95% CI 0.59-2.61, p = 0.49). Nonteaching status was independently associated with lower odds of performing decompression alone (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.19-0.97, p = 0.04). Predictor importance analysis revealed that the most important determinants of treatment selection were dominant symptom (Wald χ2 = 34.7, accounting for 13.6% of total χ2) and concurrent diagnosis of disc herniation (Wald χ2 = 31.7, accounting for 12.4% of total χ2). Hospital teaching status was also found to be relatively important (Wald χ2 = 4.2, accounting for 1.6% of total χ2) but less important than other patient-level predictors., Conclusions: Nonteaching centers were more likely to perform decompressive laminectomy with supplemental fusion for spondylolisthesis. Suburban hospitals were more likely to perform decompression only. Surgeon characteristics were not found to influence treatment selection after adjustment for clinical covariates. Further large database registry experience from surgeons at high-volume academic centers at which surgically and medically complex patients are treated may provide additional insight into factors associated with treatment preference for degenerative spondylolisthesis.

Introduction: In the current study, we sought to compare baseline demographic, clinical, and operative characteristics, as well as baseline and follow-up patient reported outcomes (PROs) of patients with any depressive and/or anxiety disorder undergoing surgery for low-grade spondylolisthesis using a national spine registry., Patients and Methods: The Quality Outcomes Database (QOD) was queried for patients undergoing surgery for Meyerding grade 1 lumbar spondylolisthesis undergoing 1-2 level decompression or 1 level fusion at 12 sites with the highest number of patients enrolled in QOD with 2-year follow-up data., Results: Of the 608 patients identified, 25.6 % (n = 156) had any depressive and/or anxiety disorder. Patients with a depressive/anxiety disorder were less likely to be discharged home (p < 0.001). At 3=months, patients with a depressive/anxiety disorder had higher back pain (p < 0.001), lower quality of life (p < 0.001) and higher disability (p = 0.013); at 2 year patients with depression and/or anxiety had lower quality of life compared to those without (p < 0.001). On multivariable regression, depression was associated with significantly lower odds of achieving 20 % or less ODI (OR 0.44, 95 % CI 0.21-0.94,p = 0.03). Presence of an anxiety disorder was not associated with decreased odds of achieving that milestone at 3 months. The presence of depressive-disorder, anxiety-disorder or both did not have an impact on ODI at 2 years. Finally, patient satisfaction at 2-years did not differ between the two groups (79.8 % vs 82.7 %,p = 0.503)., Conclusion: We found that presence of a depressive-disorder may impact short-term outcomes among patients undergoing surgery for low grade spondylolisthesis but longer term outcomes are not affected by either a depressive or anxiety disorder., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Lumbar decompression without arthrodesis remains a potential treatment option for cases of low-grade spondylolisthesis (i.e., Meyerding grade I). Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) techniques have recently been increasingly used because of their touted benefits including lower operating time, blood loss, and length of stay. Herein, the authors analyzed patients enrolled in a national surgical registry and compared the baseline characteristics and postoperative clinical and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) between patients undergoing open versus MIS lumbar decompression., Methods: The authors queried the Quality Outcomes Database for patients with grade I lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis undergoing a surgical intervention between July 2014 and June 2016. Among more than 200 participating sites, the 12 with the highest enrollment of patients into the lumbar spine module came together to initiate a focused project to assess the impact of fusion on PROs in patients undergoing surgery for grade I lumbar spondylolisthesis. For the current study, only patients in this cohort from the 12 highest-enrolling sites who underwent a decompression alone were evaluated and classified as open or MIS (tubular decompression). Outcomes of interest included PROs at 2 years; perioperative outcomes such as blood loss and complications; and postoperative outcomes such as length of stay, discharge disposition, and reoperations., Results: A total of 140 patients undergoing decompression were selected, of whom 71 (50.7%) underwent MIS and 69 (49.3%) underwent an open decompression. On univariate analysis, the authors observed no significant differences between the 2 groups in terms of PROs at 2-year follow-up, including back pain, leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index score, EQ-5D score, and patient satisfaction. On multivariable analysis, compared to MIS, open decompression was associated with higher satisfaction (OR 7.5, 95% CI 2.41-23.2, p = 0.0005). Patients undergoing MIS decompression had a significantly shorter length of stay compared to the open group (0.68 days [SD 1.18] vs 1.83 days [SD 1.618], p < 0.001)., Conclusions: In this multiinstitutional prospective study, the authors found comparable PROs as well as clinical outcomes at 2 years between groups of patients undergoing open or MIS decompression for low-grade spondylolisthesis.

The Quality Outcomes Database (QOD), formerly known as the National Neurosurgery Quality Outcomes Database (N2QOD), was established by the NeuroPoint Alliance (NPA) in collaboration with relevant national stakeholders and experts. The overarching goal of this project was to develop a centralized, nationally coordinated effort to allow individual surgeons and practice groups to collect, measure, and analyze practice patterns and neurosurgical outcomes. Specific objectives of this registry program were as follows: "1) to establish risk-adjusted national benchmarks for both the safety and effectiveness of neurosurgical procedures, 2) to allow practice groups and hospitals to analyze their individual morbidity and clinical outcomes in real time, 3) to generate both quality and efficiency data to support claims made to public and private payers and objectively demonstrate the value of care to other stakeholders, 4) to demonstrate the comparative effectiveness of neurosurgical and spine procedures, 5) to develop sophisticated 'risk models' to determine which subpopulations of patients are most likely to benefit from specific surgical interventions, and 6) to facilitate essential multicenter trials and other cooperative clinical studies." The NPA has launched several neurosurgical specialty modules in the QOD program in the 7 years since its inception including lumbar spine, cervical spine, and spinal deformity and cerebrovascular and intracranial tumor. The QOD Spine modules, which are the primary subject of this paper, have evolved into the largest North American spine registries yet created and have resulted in unprecedented cooperative activities within our specialty and among affiliated spine care practitioners. Herein, the authors discuss the experience of QOD Spine programs to date, with a brief description of their inception, some of the key achievements and milestones, as well as the recent transition of the spine modules to the American Spine Registry (ASR), a collaboration between the American Association of Neurological Surgeons and the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS).

Objective: Loss to follow-up has been shown to bias outcomes assessment among studies utilizing clinical registries. Here, the authors analyzed patients enrolled in a national surgical registry and compared the baseline characteristics of patients captured with those lost to follow-up at 2 years., Methods: The authors queried the Quality Outcomes Database for patients with grade I lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis undergoing a surgical intervention between July 2014 and June 2016. Only those patients enrolled in a multisite study investigating the impact of fusion on clinical and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) among patients with grade I spondylolisthesis were evaluated., Results: Of the 608 patients enrolled in the study undergoing 1- or 2-level decompression (23.0%, n = 140) or 1-level fusion (77.0%, n = 468), 14.5% (n = 88) were lost to follow-up at 2 years. Patients who were lost to follow-up were more likely to be younger (59.6 ± 13.5 vs 62.6 ± 11.7 years, p = 0.031), be employed (unemployment rate: 53.3% [n = 277] for successful follow-up vs 40.9% [n = 36] for those lost to follow-up, p = 0.017), have anxiety (26.1% [n = 23] vs 16.3% [n = 85], p = 0.026), have higher back pain scores (7.4 ± 2.9 vs 6.6 ± 2.8, p = 0.010), have higher leg pain scores (7.4 ± 2.5 vs 6.4 ± 2.9, p = 0.003), have higher Oswestry Disability Index scores (50.8 ± 18.7 vs 46 ± 16.8, p = 0.018), and have lower EQ-5D scores (0.481 ± 0.2 vs 0.547 ± 0.2, p = 0.012) at baseline., Conclusions: To execute future, high-quality studies, it is important to identify patients undergoing surgery for spondylolisthesis who might be lost to follow-up. In a large, prospective registry, the authors found that those lost to follow-up were more likely to be younger, be employed, have anxiety disorder, and have worse PRO scores.

Objective: Discharge to an inpatient rehabilitation facility or another acute-care facility not only constitutes a postoperative challenge for patients and their care team but also contributes significantly to healthcare costs. In this era of changing dynamics of healthcare payment models in which cost overruns are being increasingly shifted to surgeons and hospitals, it is important to better understand outcomes such as discharge disposition. In the current article, the authors sought to develop a predictive model for factors associated with nonroutine discharge after surgery for grade I spondylolisthesis., Methods: The authors queried the Quality Outcomes Database for patients with grade I lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis who underwent a surgical intervention between July 2014 and June 2016. Only those patients enrolled in a multisite study investigating the impact of fusion on clinical and patient-reported outcomes among patients with grade I spondylolisthesis were evaluated. Nonroutine discharge was defined as those who were discharged to a postacute or nonacute-care setting in the same hospital or transferred to another acute-care facility., Results: Of the 608 patients eligible for inclusion, 9.4% (n = 57) had a nonroutine discharge (8.7%, n = 53 discharged to inpatient postacute or nonacute care in the same hospital and 0.7%, n = 4 transferred to another acute-care facility). Compared to patients who were discharged to home, patients who had a nonroutine discharge were more likely to have diabetes (26.3%, n = 15 vs 15.7%, n = 86, p = 0.039); impaired ambulation (26.3%, n = 15 vs 10.2%, n = 56, p < 0.001); higher Oswestry Disability Index at baseline (51 [IQR 42-62.12] vs 46 [IQR 34.4-58], p = 0.014); lower EuroQol-5D scores (0.437 [IQR 0.308-0.708] vs 0.597 [IQR 0.358-0.708], p = 0.010); higher American Society of Anesthesiologists score (3 or 4: 63.2%, n = 36 vs 36.7%, n = 201, p = 0.002); and longer length of stay (4 days [IQR 3-5] vs 2 days [IQR 1-3], p < 0.001); and were more likely to suffer a complication (14%, n = 8 vs 5.6%, n = 31, p = 0.014). On multivariable logistic regression, factors found to be independently associated with higher odds of nonroutine discharge included older age (interquartile OR 9.14, 95% CI 3.79-22.1, p < 0.001), higher body mass index (interquartile OR 2.04, 95% CI 1.31-3.25, p < 0.001), presence of depression (OR 4.28, 95% CI 1.96-9.35, p < 0.001), fusion surgery compared with decompression alone (OR 1.3, 95% CI 1.1-1.6, p < 0.001), and any complication (OR 3.9, 95% CI 1.4-10.9, p < 0.001)., Conclusions: In this multisite study of a defined cohort of patients undergoing surgery for grade I spondylolisthesis, factors associated with higher odds of nonroutine discharge included older age, higher body mass index, presence of depression, and occurrence of any complication.

Health care is expensive in the United States. There is an increasing focus on value rather than volume. Accurately measuring quality is a critically important step in determining value of care delivered. This article discusses the trials and techniques of measuring quality in spine surgery. A detailed analysis of advantages and disadvantages of various measures of quality, including process measurements, patient-reported outcome measurements, and safety measurements is included-from a historical perspective through modern practice., (Copyright © 2018 by the Congress of Neurological Surgeons.)

OBJECTIVE Lumbar spondylolisthesis is a degenerative condition that can be surgically treated with either open or minimally invasive decompression and instrumented fusion. Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) approaches may shorten recovery, reduce blood loss, and minimize soft-tissue damage with resultant reduced postoperative pain and disability. METHODS The authors queried the national, multicenter Quality Outcomes Database (QOD) registry for patients undergoing posterior lumbar fusion between July 2014 and December 2015 for Grade I degenerative spondylolisthesis. The authors recorded baseline and 12-month patient-reported outcomes (PROs), including Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), EQ-5D, numeric rating scale (NRS)-back pain (NRS-BP), NRS-leg pain (NRS-LP), and satisfaction (North American Spine Society satisfaction questionnaire). Multivariable regression models were fitted for hospital length of stay (LOS), 12-month PROs, and 90-day return to work, after adjusting for an array of preoperative and surgical variables. RESULTS A total of 345 patients (open surgery, n = 254; MIS, n = 91) from 11 participating sites were identified in the QOD. The follow-up rate at 12 months was 84% (83.5% [open surgery]; 85% [MIS]). Overall, baseline patient demographics, comorbidities, and clinical characteristics were similarly distributed between the cohorts. Two hundred fifty seven patients underwent 1-level fusion (open surgery, n = 181; MIS, n = 76), and 88 patients underwent 2-level fusion (open surgery, n = 73; MIS, n = 15). Patients in both groups reported significant improvement in all primary outcomes (all p < 0.001). MIS was associated with a significantly lower mean intraoperative estimated blood loss and slightly longer operative times in both 1- and 2-level fusion subgroups. Although the LOS was shorter for MIS 1-level cases, this was not significantly different. No difference was detected with regard to the 12-month PROs between the 1-level MIS versus the 1-level open surgical groups. However, change in functional outcome scores for patients undergoing 2-level fusion was notably larger in the MIS cohort for ODI (-27 vs -16, p = 0.1), EQ-5D (0.27 vs 0.15, p = 0.08), and NRS-BP (-3.5 vs -2.7, p = 0.41); statistical significance was shown only for changes in NRS-LP scores (-4.9 vs -2.8, p = 0.02). On risk-adjusted analysis for 1-level fusion, open versus minimally invasive approach was not significant for 12-month PROs, LOS, and 90-day return to work. CONCLUSIONS Significant improvement was found in terms of all functional outcomes in patients undergoing open or MIS fusion for lumbar spondylolisthesis. No difference was detected between the 2 techniques for 1-level fusion in terms of patient-reported outcomes, LOS, and 90-day return to work. However, patients undergoing 2-level MIS fusion reported significantly better improvement in NRS-LP at 12 months than patients undergoing 2-level open surgery. Longer follow-up is needed to provide further insight into the comparative effectiveness of the 2 procedures.

Background Context: Over the last decade, clinical investigators and biomedical industry groups have used significant resources to develop advanced technologies that enable less invasive spine fusions. These minimally invasive surgery (MIS) technologies often require increased expenditures by hospitals and payers. Although several small single center studies have suggested MIS technologies decrease surgical morbidity and reduce hospital stay, evidence documenting benefit from a patient perspective remains limited. Furthermore, MIS outcomes have yet to be evaluated from the perspective of multiple practice types representing the broad spectrum of US spine surgery., Purpose: This study aimed to examine a population of patients who underwent one- or two-level interbody lumbar fusion diagnosed with lumbar stenosis or Grade 1 spondylolisthesis in an observational, prospective national registry for the purposes of determining how MIS and traditional open technologies affect postsurgical and patient-reported outcomes (PROs)., Study Design/setting: This study used observational analysis of prospectively collected data., Patient Sample: The sample consisted of cases from the National Neurosurgery Quality and Outcomes Database (N 2 QOD)., Outcome Measures: Numeric rating scale for back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index, EuroQol-5D, return to work, and perioperative morbidity were the outcome measures., Methods: The N 2 QOD is a prospective PROs registry enrolling patients undergoing elective spine surgery from 60 hospitals in 27 US states via representative sampling. We analyzed the N 2 QOD aggregate dataset (2010-2014) to identify one- and two-level lumbar interbody fusion procedures performed for lumbar stenosis or Grade 1 spondylolisthesis with 12 months' follow-up where surgical instrumentation and implant types were clearly identified. Perioperative and 1-year outcomes were compared between cases performed with MIS enabling technologies versus traditional open technologies before and after propensity matching., Results: There were 467 (24%) patients who underwent elective interbody lumbar fusion using MIS enabling technologies whereas 1,480 (76%) underwent the procedure using traditional open technologies. The MIS patients were slightly healthier (American Society of Anesthesiologists grade), had private insurance more frequently, and underwent two-level fusion less frequently. Unmatched, the MIS cohort was associated with reduced blood loss, a 0.7-day reduction in mean length of hospital stay, and 5% reduced need for post-discharge inpatient rehabilitation, but equivalent 90-day safety measures. After propensity matching, the MIS cohort remained associated with reduced blood loss and a shorter length of stay for one-level fusion (p<.05) but had equivalent length of stay for two-level fusion. Outcomes in all other 90-day safety measures were similar. In both unadjusted and propensity-matched comparison, MIS versus open technologies were associated with equivalent return to work, patient-reported pain, physical disability, and quality of life at 3 and 12 months' follow-up., Conclusions: In a representative sampling registry of elective interbody lumbar spine fusion procedures spanning 27 US states, nearly a quarter of procedures performed from 2010 to 2014 used minimally invasive enabling technologies. Regardless of approach, interbody lumbar fusion was associated with significant and sustained improvements in all measured health domains. When used in everyday care by a wide spectrum of spine surgeons in non-research settings, the use of MIS technologies was associated with reduced intraoperative blood loss but only a half-day reduction in mean length of hospital stay for one-level fusions. Minimally invasive surgery was not associated with any improved perioperative safety measures or 12-month outcomes. Although MIS enabling technologies may increase some in-hospital care efficiencies, MIS clinical outcomes are similar to open surgery for patients undergoing one- and two-level interbody lumbar fusions., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)