Outcomes Following Direct Versus Indirect Decompression Techniques for Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: A Propensity-Matched Analysis.

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.)