Search

Background Context: Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) and lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) with percutaneous posterior screw fixation are two techniques used to address degenerative lumbar pathologies. Traditionally, these anterior-posterior (AP) surgeries involve repositioning the patient from the supine or lateral decubitus position to prone for posterior fixation. To reduce operative time (OpTime) and subsequent complications of prolonged anesthesia, single-position lumbar surgery (SPLS) is a novel, minimally invasive alternative performed entirely from the lateral decubitus position., Purpose: Assess the perioperative safety and efficacy of single position AP lumbar fusion surgery (SPLS)., Study Design: Multicenter retrospective cohort study., Patient Sample: Three hundred and ninety patients undergoing AP surgery were included, of which 237 underwent SPLS and 153 were in the Flip group., Outcome Measures: Outcome measures included levels fused, percentage of cases including L5-S1 fusion, fluoroscopy radiation dosage, OpTime, estimated blood loss (EBL), length of stay (LOS), and perioperative complications. Radiographic analysis included lumbar lordosis (LL), pelvic incidence, pelvic tilt, and segmental LL., Methods: Patients undergoing primary ALIF and/or LLIF surgery with bilateral percutaneous pedicle screw fixation between L2-S1 were included over a 4-year period. Patients were classified as either traditional repositioned "Flip" surgery or SPLS. Outcome measures included levels fused, percentage of cases including L5-S1 fusion, fluoroscopy radiation dosage, OpTime, EBL, LOS, perioperative complications. Radiographic analysis included LL, pelvic incidence, pelvic tilt, and segmental LL. All measures were compared using independent samples t-tests and chi-squared analyses as appropriate with significance set at p < .05. Propensity matching was completed where demographic differences were found., Results: Three hundred and ninety patients undergoing AP surgery were included, of which 237 underwent SPLS and 153 were in the Flip group. Age, gender, BMI, and CCI were similar between groups. Levels fused (1.47 SPLS vs 1.52 Flip, p = .468) and percent cases including L5-S1 (31% SPLS, 35% Flip, p = .405) were similar between cohorts. SPLS significantly reduced OpTime (103 min vs 306 min, p < .001), EBL (97 vs 313 mL, p < .001), LOS (1.71 vs 4.12 days, p < .001), and fluoroscopy radiation dosage (32 vs 88 mGy, p < .001) compared to Flip. Perioperative complications were similar between cohorts with the exception of postoperative ileus, which was significantly lower in the SPLS group (0% vs 5%, p < .001). There was no significant difference in wound, vascular injury, neurological complications, or Venous Thrombotic Event. There was no significant difference found in 90-day return to operating room (OR)., Conclusions: SPLS improves operative efficiency in addition to reducing blood loss, LOS and ileus in this large cohort study, while maintaining safety., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background Context: Expandable cages (EXP) are being more frequently utilized in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions (TLIF). EXP were designed to reduce complications related to neurological retraction, enable better lordosis restoration, and improve ease of insertion, particularly in the advent of minimally invasive surgical (MIS) techniques, however they are exponentially more expensive than the nonexpandable (NE) alternative., Purpose: To investigate the clinical results of expandable cages in single level TLIF., Study Design/setting: Retrospective review at a single institution., Patient Sample: Two hundred and fifty-two single level TLIFs from 2012 to 2018 were included., Outcome Measures: Clinical characteristics, perioperative and neurologic complication rates, and radiographic measures., Methods: Patients ≥18 years of age who underwent single level TLIF with minimum 1 year follow-up were included., Outcome Measures: clinical characteristics, perioperative and neurologic complications. Radiographic analysis included pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis (PI-LL) mismatch, segmental lumbar lordosis (LL) mismatch, disc height restoration, and subsidence ≥2 mm. Statistical analysis included independent t tests and chi-square analysis. For nonparametric variables, Mann-Whitney U test and Spearman partial correlation were utilized. Multivariate regression was performed to assess relationships between surgical variables and recorded outcomes. For univariate analysis significance was set at p<.05. Due to the multiple comparisons being made, significance for regressions was set at p<.025 utilizing Bonferroni correction., Results: Two hundred and fifty-two TLIFs between 2012 and 2018 were included, with 152 NE (54.6% female, mean age 59.28±14.19, mean body mass index (BMI) 28.65±5.38, mean Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) 2.20±1.89) and 100 EXP (48% female, mean age 58.81±11.70, mean BMI 28.68±6.06, mean CCI 1.99±1.66) with no significant differences in demographics. Patients instrumented with EXP cages had a shorter length of stay (3.11±2.06 days EXP vs. 4.01±2.64 days NE; Z=-4.189, p<.001) and a lower estimated blood loss (201.31±189.41 mL EXP vs. 377.82±364.06 mL NE; Z=-6.449, p<.001). There were significantly more MIS-TLIF cases and bone morphogenic protein (BMP) use in the EXP group (88% MIS, p<.001 and 60% BMP, p<.001) as illustrated in Table 1. There were no significant differences between the EXP and NE groups in rates of radiculitis and neuropraxia. In multivariate regression analysis, EXP were not associated with a difference in perioperative outcomes or complications. Radiographic analyses demonstrated that the EXP group had a lower PI-LL mismatch than the NE cage group at baseline (3.75±13.81° EXP vs. 12.75±15.81° NE; p=.001) and at 1 year follow-up (3.81±12.84° EXP vs. 8.23±12.73° NE; p=.046), but change in regional and segmental alignment was not significantly different between groups. Multivariate regression demonstrated that EXP use was a risk factor for intraoperative subsidence (2.729[1.185-6.281]; p=.018)., Conclusions: Once technique was controlled for, TLIFs utilizing EXP do not have significantly improved neurologic or radiographic outcomes compared with NE. EXP increase risk of intraoperative subsidence. These results question the value of the EXP given the higher cost., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Lumbar herniated nucleus pulposus (HNP) is a common spinal pathology often treated by microscopic lumbar discectomy (MLD), though prior reports have not demonstrated which preoperative MRI factors may contribute to significant clinical improvement after MLD., Purpose: To analyze the MRI characteristics in patients with HNP that predict meaningful clinical improvement in health-related quality of life scores (HRQoL) after MLD., Study Design/setting: Retrospective clinical and radiological study of patients undergoing MLD for HNP at a single institution over a 2-year period., Patient Sample: Eighty-eight patients receiving MLD treatment for HNP., Outcome Measures: Cephalocaudal Canal Migration; Canal & HNP Anterior-Posterior (AP) Lengths and Ratio; Canal & HNP Axial Areas and Ratio; Hemi-Canal & Hemi-HNP Axial Areas and Ratio; Disc appearance (black, gray, or mixed); Baseline (BL); and 3-month (3M) postoperative HRQoL scores., Methods: Patients >18 years old who received MLD for HNP with BL and 3M HRQoL scores of PROMIS (Physical Function, Pain Interference, and Pain Intensity), ODI, VAS Back, and VAS Leg scores were included. HNP and spinal canal measurements of cephalocaudal migration, AP length, area, hemi-area, and disc appearance were performed using T2 axial and sagittal MRI. HNP measurements were divided by corresponding canal measurements to calculate AP, Area, and Hemi-Area ratios. Using known minimal clinically important differences (MCID) for each ΔHRQoL score, patients were separated into two groups based on whether they reached MCID (MCID+) or did not reach MCID (MCID-). The MCID for PROMIS pain intensity was calculated using a decision tree. A linear regression illustrated correlations between PROMIS vs ODI and VAS Back/Leg scores. Independent t-tests and chi-squared tests were utilized to investigate significant differences in HNP measurements between the MCID+ and MCID- groups., Results: There were 88 MLD patients included in the study (Age=44.6±14.9, 38.6% female). PROMIS pain interference and pain intensity were strongly correlated with ODI and VAS Back/Leg (R≥0.505), and physical function correlated with ODI and VAS Back/Leg (R=-0.349) (all p<.01). The strongest MRI predictors of meeting HRQoL MCID were gray disc appearance, HNP area (>116.6 mm 2 ), and Hemi-Area Ratio (>51.8%). MCID+ patients were 2.7 times more likely to have a gray HNP MRI signal than a mixed or black HNP MRI signal in five out of six HRQoL score comparisons (p<.025). MCID+ patients had larger HNP areas than MCID- patients had in five out of six HRQoL score comparisons (116.6 mm 2 ±46.4 vs 90.0 mm 2 ±43.2, p<.04). MCID+ patients had a greater Hemi-Area Ratio than MCID- patients had in four out of six HRQoL score comparisons (51.8%±14.7 vs 43.9%±14.9, p<.05)., Conclusions: Patients who met MCID after MLD had larger HNP areas and larger Hemi-HNP Areas than those who did not meet MCID. These patients were also 2.7× more likely to have a gray MRI signal than a mixed or black MRI signal. When accounting for HNP area relative to canal area, patients who met MCID had greater Hemi-HNP canal occupation than patients who did not meet MCID. The results of this study suggest that preoperative MRI parameters can be useful in predicting patient-reported improvement after MLD., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Numerous advances have been made in the field of spine fusion, such as minimally invasive (MIS) or robotic assisted spine surgery. However, it is unknown how these advances have impacted the cost of care. Compare the economic outcomes of lumbar spine fusion between open, MIS and robotic assisted surgery patients. Retrospective review of a single center spine surgery database. A total of 360 propensity matched patients. Costs, EuroQol-5D (EQ5D), Cost per quality adjusted life years (QALY). Inclusion criteria: surgical patients >18 years undergoing lumbar fusion surgery. Patients were categorized into 3 groups based on procedure type: open, MIS or robotic. Open patients undergoing poster spinal fusion were considered as the control group. MIS patients included those undergoing transforaminal or lateral lumbar interbody fusion with percutaneous screws. Robotic patients were those undergoing robot assisted fusion. Propensity score matching was performed between all groups for the number of levels fused. Costs were calculated using the PearlDiver database, which reflects both private insurance and Medicare reimbursement claims for ICD-9 codes. For robot cases, costs were reflective of operational fees and initial purchase cost. Complications and comorbidities (CC) and major complications and comorbidities (MCC) were assessed according to CMS.gov manual definitions. QALYs and cost per QALY were calculated using a 3% discount rate to account for residual decline to life expectancy (78.7 years). Costs per QALY were calculated for both 1 year and life expectancy, assuming no loss of benefit. A total of 360 propensity matched patients (120 open, 120 MIS, 120 robot) met inclusion. Descriptive statistics for the cohort were: age 58.8±13.5, 50% women, BMI 29.4±6.3, op time 294.4±119.0, LOS 4.56±3.31 days, EBL 515.9±670.0 cc, and 2.3±2.2 average levels fused. Rates of postop complications were significantly higher in robotic cases versus open and MIS (43% vs. 21% and 22% for open and MIS, p<0.05). However, revision rates were comparable between all groups (3% open, 3% MIS, 5% robotic, p>0.05). After factoring in complications, revisions, and purchasing and operating fees, the costs of robotic cases was significantly higher than both open and MIS surgery ($60,047.01 vs. $42,538.98 open and $41,471.21 MIS). In a sub analysis of 42 patients with BL and 1Y EQ5D data, the cost per QALY at 1Y for open, MIS, and robot assisted cases was $296,624.48, $115,911.69, and $592,734.30. If utility gained was sustained to life expectancy, the cost per QALY was $14,905.75, $5,824.71, $29,785.64 for open, MIS, and robot assisted cases. Numerous advances have been made in the field of spine surgery, however, there has been limited discussion of the effect these advances have on economic outcomes. When matched for levels fused, robot assisted surgery patients had significantly higher rates of complications and 30% higher costs of surgery compared to minimally invasive and open spine surgery patients. While 1 year economic outcomes weren't optimal for robotic surgery cases, the projected costs per quality adjusted life years at life expectancy were well below established acceptable thresholds. This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]