Search

Study DesignMatched cohort study.PurposeTo compare and describe the effect of opioid usage on the expectations of lumbar surgery outcomes among patients taking opioids and patients not taking opioids.Overview of LiteratureChronic opioid use is common among lumbar-spine surgery patients. The decision to undergo elective lumbar surgery is influenced by the expected surgery outcomes. However, the effects of opioids on patients’ expectations of lumbar surgery outcomes remain to be rigorously assessed.MethodsA total of 77 opioid users grouped according to dose and duration (54 “higher users,” 30 “lower users”) were matched 2:1 to 154 non-opioid users based on age, sex, marital status, chiropractic care, disability, and diagnosis. All patients completed a validated 20-item Expectations Survey measuring expected improvement with regard to symptoms, function, psychological well-being, and anticipated future spine condition. “Greater expectations” was defined as a higher survey score (possible range, 0–100) based on the number of items expected and degree of improvement expected.ResultsThe mean Expectations Survey scores for all opioid users and all non-users were similar (73 vs. 70, p=0.18). Scores were different, however, for lower users (79) compared with matched non-users (69, p=0.01) and compared with higher users (70, p=0.01). In multivariable analysis, “greater expectations” was independently associated with having had chiropractic care (p=0.03), being more disabled (p=0.002), and being a lower-dose opioid user (p=0.03). Compared with higher users, lower users were also more likely to expect not to need pain medications 2 years after surgery (47% vs. 83%, p=0.003).ConclusionsPatient expectations of lumbar surgery are associated with diverse demographic and clinical variables. A lower dose and shorter duration of opioid use were associated with expecting more items and expecting more complete improvement compared with non-users. In addition, lower opioid users had greater overall expectations compared with higher users.

Study DesignRetrospective case-control study.PurposeThe purpose of this study was to examine the effect of antidepressants on blood loss and transfusion requirements in spinal surgery patients.Overview of LiteratureSeveral studies have shown an increase in perioperative bleeding in orthopedic surgery patients on antidepressant drug therapy, yet no study has examined the impact of these agents on spinal surgery patients.MethodsCharts of patients who underwent single-level spinal fusion (posterior lumbar interbody fusion with posterior instrumentation) performed by five fellowship-trained surgeons at a tertiary spine center between 2008 and 2013, were retrospectively reviewed. Exclusion criteria included select medical comorbidities, select drug therapy, and Amercian Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Classification score of greater than 2. Serotonergic antidepressants were examined in multivariate analysis to assess their predictive value on estimated blood loss and risk of transfusion.ResultsA total of 235 patients, of which 52% were female, were included. Allogeneic blood was transfused in 7% of patients. The average estimated blood loss was 682±463 mL. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors were taken by 10% of all patients. Multivariable regression analysis showed that intake of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors was a significant predictor for blood loss (average increase of 34%, p=0.015) and for the need of allogeneic blood transfusion (odds ratio, 4.550; p=0.029).ConclusionsThere was a statistically significant association between selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and both increased blood loss and risk of allogeneic red blood cell transfusion. Surgeons and perioperative providers should take these findings into account when assessing patients' preoperative risk for blood loss and transfusion.

The lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) is a relatively new technique that allows the surgeon to access the intervertebral space from a direct lateral approach either anterior to or through the psoas muscle. This approach provides an alternative to anterior lumbar interbody fusion with instrumentation, posterior lumbar interbody fusion, and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for anterior column support. LLIF is minimally invasive, safe, better structural support from the apophyseal ring, potential for coronal plane deformity correction, and indirect decompression, which have has made this technique popular. LLIF is currently being utilized for a variety of pathologies including but not limited to adult de novo lumbar scoliosis, central and foraminal stenosis, spondylolisthesis, and adjacent segment degeneration. Although early clinical outcomes have been good, the potential for significant neurological and vascular vertebral endplate complications exists. Nevertheless, LLIF is a promising technique with the potential to more effectively treat complex adult de novo scoliosis and achieve predictable fusion while avoiding the complications of traditional anterior surgery and posterior interbody techniques.

STUDY DESIGN: Level 4 retrospective review. PURPOSE: To compare the radiographic and clinical outcomes between posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) and lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) with posterior segmental spinal instrumentation (SSI) for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: Both PLIF and LLIF have been performed for degenerative spondylolisthesis with good results, but no study has directly compared these two techniques so far. METHODS: The electronic medical and radiographic records of 78 matched patients were analyzed. In one group, 39 patients underwent PLIF with SSI at 41 levels (L3-4/L4-5), while in the other group, 39 patients underwent the LLIF procedure at 48 levels (L3-4/L4-5). Radiological outcomes such as restoration of disc height and neuroforaminal height, segmental lumbar lordosis, total lumbar lordosis, incidence of endplate fracture, and subsidence were measured. Perioperative parameters were also recorded in each group. Clinical outcome in both groups was assessed by the short form-12, Oswestry disability index and visual analogue scale scores. The average follow-up period was 16.1 months in the LLIF group and 21 months in the PLIF group. RESULTS: The restoration of disc height, foraminal height, and segmental lumbar lordosis was significantly better in the LLIF group (p