Comparison of instrumented anterior interbody fusion with instrumented circumferential lumbar fusion

Venous Anomalies Complicating Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Exposures

The effects of anomalous vasculature impeding optimal exposure to an anterior lumbar interbody fusion approach are limited in literature. We present five individual, unique cases of vascular anomalies in patients undergoing two-stage anterior-posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Cases 1, 2, 4, and 5 have yet to be described in literature in context of anterior lumbar interbody fusions. Case 3 presents anomalous vasculature that has only been described in two other case reports. Case 1 presents the right internal iliac vein originating from the left common iliac vein which was transected for L4-L5 vertebral disc exposure. Case 2 presents the left internal iliac vein originating from the right common iliac vein which required an oblique approach. Case 3 presents a duplicated inferior vena cava that was taken into account but did not interfere with the anterior retroperitoneal approach. Case 4 presents large osteophytes adhering to the left common iliac vein which limited safe dissection and mobilization. Case 5 presents the left internal iliac vein with a high takeoff spanning across the L5-S1 vertebral disc space and requiring transection. This case series highlights the need for preoperative imaging and a working detailed knowledge of anatomy to avoid damaging vasculature that can potentially lead to fatal consequences. The information given in this case series should inform both spine and vascular surgeons on proper preoperative planning. To maximize operative efficiency and safety, spine surgeons and vascular surgeons should collaborate to minimize surgical complications.

Predictive factors of symptomatic lumbar pseudoarthrosis following multilevel primary lumbar fusion

Background

Lumbar spinal fusion surgery is a well-established treatment for various spinal disorders. However, one of its complications, pseudoarthrosis, poses a significant concern. This study aims to explore the incidence, time and predictive factors contributing to pseudoarthrosis in patients who have undergone lumbar fusion surgery over a 10-year period.

Methods

Data for this research was sourced from the PearlDiver database where insurance claims of patients who underwent multilevel lumbar spinal fusion between 01/01/2010 and 10/31/2022 were examined for claims of pseudoarthrosis within the 10 years of their index procedure. A variety of demographic, comorbid, and surgical factors were assessed, including age, gender, Elixhauser Comorbidity Index (ECI), surgical approach, substance use disorders and history of spinal disorders. Statistical analyses, including chi-squared tests, multivariate analysis, and cox survival analysis were employed to determine significant associations.

Results

Among the 76,337 patients included in this retrospective study, 2.70% were diagnosed with symptomatic lumbar pseudoarthrosis at an average of 7.38 years in a 10-year follow-up. Multivariate and Cox hazard analyses revealed that significant predictors of symptomatic pseudoarthrosis development following multilevel primary lumbar fusion include vitamin D deficiency, osteoarthritis, opioid and NSAID use, tobacco use, and a prior history of congenital spine disorders.

Conclusions

In summary, this study revealed a 2.70% incidence of symptomatic lumbar pseudoarthrosis within 10 years of the index procedure. It highlighted several potential predictive factors, including comorbidities, surgical approaches, and substance use disorders, associated with the development of symptomatic pseudoarthrosis. Future research should focus on refining our understanding of these factors to improve patient outcomes and optimize healthcare resource allocation.

A systematic review of anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), posterolateral lumbar fusion (PLF)

PURPOSE

The rate of elective lumbar fusion has continued to increase over the past two decades. However, there remains to be a consensus on the optimal fusion technique. This study aims to compare stand-alone anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) with posterior fusion techniques in patients with spondylolisthesis and degenerative disc disease through a systematic review and meta-analysis of the available literature.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed by searching the Cochrane Register of Trials, MEDLINE, and EMBASE from inception to 2022. In the two-stage screening process, three reviewers independently reviewed titles and abstracts. The full-text reports of the remaining studies were then inspected for eligibility. Conflicts were resolved through consensus discussion. Two reviewers then extracted study data, assessed it for quality, and analysed it.

RESULTS

After the initial search and removal of duplicate records, 16,435 studies were screened. Twenty-one eligible studies (3686 patients) were ultimately included, which compared stand-alone ALIF with posterior approaches such as posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), and posterolateral lumbar fusion (PLF). A meta-analysis showed surgical time and blood loss was significantly lower in ALIF than in TLIF/PLIF, but not in those who underwent PLF (p = 0.08). The length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in ALIF than in TLIF, but not in PLIF or PLF. Fusion rates were similar between the ALIF and posterior approaches. The Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores for back and leg pain were not significantly different between the ALIF and PLIF/TLIF groups. However, VAS back pain favoured ALIF over PLF at one year (n = 21, MD - 1.00, CI - 1.47, - 0.53), and at two years (2 studies, n = 67, MD - 1.39, CI - 1.67, - 1.11). The VAS leg pain scores (n = 46, MD 0.50, CI 0.12 to 0.88) at two years significantly favoured PLF. The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores at one year were not significantly different between ALIF and the posterior approaches. At two years, ODI scores were also similar between the ALIF and the TLIF/PLIF. However, the ODI scores at two years (2 studies, n = 67, MD - 7.59, CI - 13.33, - 1.85) significantly favoured ALIF over PLF (I2 = 70%). The Japanese Orthopaedic Association Score (JOAS) for low back pain at one year (n = 21, MD - 0.50, CI - 0.78) and two years (two studies, n = 67, MD - 0.36, CI - 0.65, - 0.07) significantly favoured ALIF over PLF. No significant differences were found in leg pain at the 2-year follow-up. Adverse events displayed no significant differences between the ALIF and posterior approaches.

CONCLUSIONS

Stand-alone-ALIF demonstrated a shorter operative time and less blood loss than the PLIF/TLIF approach. Hospitalisation time is reduced with ALIF compared with TLIF. Patient-reported outcome measures were equivocal with PLIF or TLIF. VAS and JOAS, back pain, and ODI scores mainly favoured ALIF over PLF. Adverse events were equivocal between the ALIF and posterior fusion approaches.

Lateral decubitus single position anterior posterior surgery improves operative efficiency, improves perioperative outcomes, and maintains radiological outcomes comparable with traditional anterior posterior fusion at minimum 2-year follow-up

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

The advantages of Lateral Single Position surgery (LSPS) in the perioperative period has previously been demonstrated, however 2-year postoperative outcomes of this novel technique have not yet been compared to circumferential anterior-posterior fusion (FLIP) at 2-years postoperatively.

PURPOSE

Evaluate the safety and efficacy of LSPS versus gold-standard FLIP STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Multi-center retrospective cohort review.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Four hundred forty- two patients undergoing lumbar fusion via LSPS or FLIP OUTCOME MEASURES: Levels fused, operative time, estimated blood loss, perioperative complications, and reasons for reoperation at 30-days, 90-days, 1-year, and 2-years. Radiographic outcomes included lumbar lordosis (LL), pelvic incidence (PI), pelvic tilt (PT), PI-LL mismatch, and segmental lumbar lordosis.

METHODS

Patients were grouped as LSPS if anterior and posterior portions of the procedure were performed in the lateral decubitus position, and FLIP if patients were repositioned from supine or lateral to prone position for the posterior portion of the procedure under the same anesthetic. Groups were compared in terms of demographics, intraoperative, perioperative and radiological outcomes, complications and reoperations up to 2-years follow-up. Measures were compared using independent samples or paired t-tests and chi-squared analyses with significance set at p<.05.

RESULTS

Four hundred forty- two pts met inclusion, including 352 LSPS and 90 FLIP pts. Significant differences were noted in age (62.4 vs 56.9; p≤.001) and smoking status (7% vs 16%; p=.023) between the LSPS and FLIP groups. LSPS demonstrated significantly lower Op time (97.7min vs 297.0 min; p<.001), fluoro dose (36.5mGy vs 78.8mGy; p<.001), EBL (88.8mL vs 270.0mL; p<.001), and LOS (1.91 days vs 3.61 days; p<.001) compared to FLIP. LSPS also demonstrated significantly fewer post-op complications than FLIP (21.9%vs 34.4%; p=.013), specifically regarding rates of ileus (0.0% vs 5.6%; p<.001). No differences in reoperation were noted at 30-day (1.7%LSPS vs 4.4%FLIP, p=.125), 90-day (5.1%LSPS vs 5.6%FLIP, p=.795) or 2-year follow-up (9.7%LSPS vs 12.2% FLIP; p=.441). LSPS group had a significantly lower preoperative PI-LL (4.1° LSPS vs 8.6°FLIP, p=.018), and a significantly greater postoperative LL (56.6° vs 51.8°, p = .006). No significant differences were noted in rates of fusion (94.3% LSPS vs 97.8% FLIP; p=.266) or subsidence (6.9% LSPS vs 12.2% FLIP; p=.260).

CONCLUSIONS

LSPS and circumferential fusions have similar outcomes at 2-years post-operatively, while reducing perioperative complications, improving perioperative efficiency and safety.

Should adjacent asymptomatic lumbar disc herniation of L5-S1 isthmic spondylolisthesis be simultaneously rectified? Evaluation of postoperative spino-pelvic sagittal balance and functional outcomes

Background

This study aimed to analyze the efficacy of the simultaneous rectification of adjacent asymptomatic lumbar disc herniation (asLDH) of L5-S1 isthmic spondylolisthesis (IS).

Methods

One hundred and forty-eight patients with L5-S1 IS, and simultaneous L4-5 asLDH, were recruited between January 2012 and December 2017, for this study. Group A: seventy-two patients received PLIF at L5-S1. Group B: seventy-six patients received PLIF at L4-S1. The radiographic outcomes were assessed via the lumbar lordosis (LL), segmental lordosis (SL), sacral slope (SS), pelvic incidence (PI), pelvic tilt (PT), PI-LL and slip degree (SD). The functional outcomes were evaluated via the visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry disability index (ODI), and reoperation rate. The potential risk hazards for reoperation were identified using both uni- and multivariate logistic regression analyses.

Results

The postoperative LL, SL, PT, SS, SD, VAS, and ODI exhibited vast improvements (P < 0.05). Relative to Group A, Group B exhibited markedly better LL, SL, PT, PI-LL,VAS and ODI scores at the final follow-up (P < 0.05). Group B also achieved better SD values post surgery than Group A (P < 0.05). The reoperation rate was remarkably elevated in Group A, compared to Group B (P < 0.05). The multivariate logistic regression analysis showed the L4-5 asLDH grade was a stand-alone risk hazard for reoperation, whereas, pre-SL and pre-LL offered protection against reoperation (P < 0.05).

Conclusions

L4-S1 PLIF is recommended to correct asLDH in L5-S1 IS patients, with high-grade disc herniation and abnormal sagittal alignment.

Analysis of Lumbar Fusion and Lumbar Arthroplasty Videos on YouTube

BACKGROUND

Patients often use the internet for information on their spinal surgeries. The goal of this study was to assess and compare the quality of lumbar fusion and arthroplasty videos on YouTube and to identify predictors of video quality.

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional.

METHODS

YouTube was searched utilizing 3 search terms for both lumbar fusion and lumbar arthroplasty. Fifty videos from each search were categorized and analyzed. Videos were analyzed using 3 scoring systems: JAMA, informative, and clinical scores. The JAMA score rates online information based on 4 factors: authorship, attribution, disclosure, and currency. The informative score previously devised by Zhang et al was also applied to each video. Finally, 2 surgery-specific scores were created for lumbar fusion and lumbar arthroplasty based on peer-reviewed information. These were modeled on the informed consent procedure. Data analysis was conducted using the Jamovi 1.1.9.0.

RESULTS

Eighty-four unique lumbar fusion videos and 82 lumbar arthroplasty videos were analyzed. Educational videos were the most common in fusion (78%) and arthroplasty (47%) groups; however, arthroplasty videos were more likely to be commercial (17%, P = 0.01). Fusion videos were more viewed (P < 0.001); however, arthroplasty videos had higher positivity ratings (P < 0.01). Overall, quality was poor for videos in both categories. Mean JAMA scores were 1.57 and 1.70 for fusion and arthroplasty, respectively, and did not differ significantly (P = 0.32). Fusion videos had higher informative scores (1.57 vs 1.23, P = 0.02) and higher clinical scores (21.8% vs 15.9%, P = 0.06).

CONCLUSION

Information on YouTube for lumbar fusion and arthroplasty is poor. However, information on fusion is better than arthroplasty. Metadata can be used to help patients pick higher quality videos.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

This paper provides clinicians with an oversight of what their patients may accessing on the internet. Patients may have incorrect information regarding the surgical proceedure they are being offered. These misconceptions must be resovled in order to gain true informed consent from the patient and avoid damage to the surgeon-patient relationship.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3

Single position lateral decubitus anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) and posterior fusion reduces complications and improves perioperative outcomes compared with traditional anterior-posterior lumbar fusion

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Lateral decubitus single position anterior-posterior (AP) fusion utilizing anterior lumbar interbody fusion and percutaneous posterior fixation is a novel, minimally invasive surgical technique. Single position lumbar surgery (SPLS) with anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) or lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) has been shown to be a safe, effective technique. This study directly compares perioperative outcomes of SPLS with lateral ALIF vs. traditional supine ALIF with repositioning (FLIP) for degenerative pathologies.

PURPOSE

To determine if SPLS with lateral ALIF improves perioperative outcomes compared to FLIP with supine ALIF.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

Multicenter retrospective cohort study.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Patients undergoing primary AP fusions with ALIF at 5 institutions from 2015 to 2020.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Levels fused, inclusion of L4-L5, L5-S1, radiation dosage, operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), length of stay (LOS), perioperative complications. Radiographic analysis included lumbar lordosis (LL), pelvic incidence (PI), and PI-LL mismatch.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of primary ALIFs with bilateral percutaneous pedicle screw fixation between L4-S1 over 5 years at 5 institutions. Patients were grouped as FLIP or SPLS. Demographic, procedural, perioperative, and radiographic outcome measures were compared using independent samples t-tests and chi-squared analyses with significance set at p <.05. Cohorts were propensity-matched for demographic or procedural differences.

RESULTS

A total of 321 patients were included; 124 SPS and 197 Flip patients. Propensity-matching yielded 248 patients: 124 SPLS and 124 FLIP. The SPLS cohort demonstrated significantly reduced operative time (132.95±77.45 vs. 261.79±91.65 min; p <0.001), EBL (120.44±217.08 vs. 224.29±243.99 mL; p <.001), LOS (2.07±1.26 vs. 3.47±1.40 days; p <.001), and rate of perioperative ileus (0.00% vs. 6.45%; p =.005). Radiation dose (39.79±31.66 vs. 37.54±35.85 mGy; p =.719) and perioperative complications including vascular injury (1.61% vs. 1.61%; p =.000), retrograde ejaculation (0.00% vs. 0.81%, p =.328), abdominal wall (0.81% vs. 2.42%; p =.338), neuropraxia (1.61% vs. 0.81%; p =.532), persistent motor deficit (0.00% vs. 1.61%; p =.166), wound complications (1.61% vs. 1.61%; p =.000), or VTE (0.81% vs. 0.81%; p =.972) were similar. No difference was seen in 90-day return to OR. Similar results were noted in sub-analyses of single-level L4-L5 or L5-S1 fusions. On radiographic analysis, the SPLS cohort had greater changes in LL (4.23±11.14 vs. 0.43±8.07 deg; p =.005) and PI-LL mismatch (-4.78±8.77 vs. -0.39±7.51 deg; p =.002).

CONCLUSIONS

Single position lateral ALIF with percutaneous posterior fixation improves operative time, EBL, LOS, rate of ileus, and maintains safety compared to supine ALIF with prone percutaneous pedicle screws between L4-S1.

Sacral Insufficiency Fracture Following Short-Segment Lumbosacral Fusion: Case Series and Review of the Literature

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective case series.

OBJECTIVE

Sacral insufficiency fracture is a rare and serious complication following lumbar spine instrumented fusion. The purpose of this study was to describe the patient characteristics, presentation, evaluation, treatment options, and outcomes for patients with sacral insufficiency fracture after short-segment lumbosacral fusion.

METHODS

Six patients from our institutional database and 16 patients from literature review were identified with a sacral insufficiency fracture after short-segment (L4-S1 or L5-S1) lumbar fusion within 1 year of surgery.

RESULTS

Patients were 55% female with a mean age of 58 years and body mass index of 30 kg/m². Osteoporosis or osteopenia was the most common comorbidity (85%). Half of patients sustained a sacral fracture after surgery from a posterior approach, while the others had anterior or anterior-posterior surgery. Mean time to fracture was 42 days with patients clinically presenting with new sacral pain (86%), radiculopathy (60%), or neurologic deficit (5%). Ultimately, 73% of patients underwent operative fixation often involving extension of the construct (75%) and fusion to the pelvis (69%). Men (P = .02) and patients with new radicular pain or neurologic deficit (P = .01) were more likely to undergo revision surgical treatment while women over 50 years of age were more likely to be treated conservatively (P = .003).

CONCLUSIONS

Spine surgeons should monitor for sacral insufficiency fracture as a source of new-onset pain in the postoperative period in patients with a short segment fusion to the sacrum. The recognition of this complication should prompt an assessment of bone health and management of underlying bone fragility.

Feasibility of cortical bone trajectory screws for bridging fixation in revision surgery for lumbar adjacent segment degeneration

BACKGROUND

To investigate the feasibility of using cortical bone trajectory (CBT) screws for bridging fixation in revision surgery for lumbar adjacent segment degeneration and to provide a reference for clinical practice.

METHODS

Computed tomography scans of the lumbar spines of 36 patients in our hospital were used. Sixteen males and 20 females with an average age of 65.5 ± 10.5 years (range: 46 to 83 years) were included. Three-dimensional reconstruction was performed using computer software. Screws with appropriate sizes were selected for the L1 to L5 vertebral segments, and traditional pedicle screws were placed using the standard method. After completing screw placement, simulated placement of CBT screws was performed separately. No overlap occurred between the two screws in the process of CBT screw placement, and the placement point and direction were adjusted until screw placement completion. After all screw placement simulations were complete, according to the contact area of the cortical bone of the screw trajectory and the screw puncture position and distance through the trajectory, the screw placement results were categorized as excellent, good, general, and failure. Excellent and good ratings were considered successful, while a general rating was regarded as acceptable. Then, the success rate and acceptable rate of each segment of the lumbar spine were calculated.

RESULTS

Three hundred and sixty screw placement simulations were performed in lumbar pedicles, and 72 CBT screws were implanted in each vertebral body of the lumbar spine. The success rates in the L1 to L5 segments were 73.6%, 80.6%, 83.3%, 88.9%, and 77.8%, respectively, and the acceptable rates were 91.7%, 97.2%, 97.2%, 100%, and 91.7%, respectively. The overall success rate and acceptable rate of CBT screw placement in the lumbar spine were 80.8% and 95.6%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

CBT screws are feasible for bridging fixation in lumbar adjacent segment degeneration revision surgery, and the accuracy of screw placement in different lumbar vertebrae varies.

Does Workers' Compensation Status Affect Outcomes after Lumbar Spine Surgery? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Low back pain (LBP) is currently the leading cause of disability worldwide and the most common reason for workers’ compensation (WC) claims. Studies have demonstrated that receiving WC is associated with a negative prognosis following treatment for a vast range of health conditions. However, the impact of WC on outcomes after spine surgery is still controversial. The aim of this meta-analysis was to systematically review the literature and analyze the impact of compensation status on outcomes after lumbar spine surgery. A systematic search was performed on Medline, Scopus, CINAHL, EMBASE and CENTRAL databases. The review included studies of patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery in which compensation status was reported. Methodological quality was assessed through ROBINS-I and quality of evidence was estimated using the GRADE rating. A total of 26 studies with a total of 2668 patients were included in the analysis. WC patients had higher post-operative pain and disability, as well as lower satisfaction after surgery when compared to those without WC. Furthermore, WC patients demonstrated to have a delayed return to work. According to our results, compensation status is associated with poor outcomes after lumbar spine surgery. Contextualizing post-operative outcomes in clinical and work-related domains helps understand the multifactorial nature of the phenomenon.

Single position circumferential fusion improves operative efficiency, reduces complications and length of stay compared with traditional circumferential fusion

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.

Advanced meta-analyses comparing the three surgical techniques total disc replacement, anterior stand-alone fusion and circumferential fusion regarding pain, function and complications up to 3 years to treat lumbar degenerative disc disease

PURPOSE

The purpose of our meta-analyses is to find the most appropriate surgical technique treating lumbar degenerative disc disease (DDD). Spinal fusion is the conventional treatment for lumbar DDD. Total disc replacement (TDR) has been developed to avoid negative effects of fusions by preserving functionality. To our knowledge, there is no evaluation comparing meta-analytically the clinical results of three different surgical techniques with same inclusion and exclusion criteria for treating DDD.

METHODS

The surgical techniques TDR, anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) and circumferential fusion (CFF) are pairwise meta-analytically compared. Primary outcomes are pain measured by the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and function measured by the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Secondary outcomes are the mean number of complications per case (MNOC) at surgery and follow-up and the overall MNOC.

RESULTS

In our systematic search, we found finally six prospective studies with the minimum follow-up of two years: four randomized controlled trials and two cohort studies. In VAS and ODI, TDR is proved to be superior to ALIF and CCF (p < 0.05), whereat ALIF is more effective than CFF without statistical significance. CFF presents the best result in complications with the lowest overall MNOC (0.1), followed by TDR (1.2) and ALIF (1.5).

CONCLUSION

According to our meta-analyses, we regard TDR to be the most appropriate surgical technique treating DDD, followed by ALIF. Further studies with a longer follow-up are needed using the same methodical approach to strengthen the VAS and ODI results and to explain the discrepant result to complications.

The effect of platelet-rich plasma on the fusion rate and clinical outcome of spinal fusion surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is widely used in many orthopedic surgeries and spinal disease treatments; however, the effect of PRP on spinal fusion remains controversial.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

To assess the fusion rate and clinical results of PRP compared with non-PRP administration in the treatment of spinal fusion with regard to decreasing pain and improving healing and function.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Studies comparing PRP to non-PRP treatment with respect to the fusion rate and clinical outcome in patients who underwent spinal fusion surgery were included.

RESULT

Three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 7 prospective cohort studies were identified. The spinal fusion rate was not significantly different between the groups in all RCTs or cohort studies at the final follow-up. In comparison, PRP significantly reduced pain after surgery as evaluated in the RCT analysis and the complication rate did not differ significantly between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

According to the available studies, PRP does not contribute to the union rate, relieve pain or increase the complication rate in spinal fusion surgery. As clinical heterogeneity exists in these studies, further large, well-designed RCTs that focus on the standard assessment of PRP are needed.

Effects of teriparatide and bisphosphonate on spinal fusion procedure: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Background

Giving patients anti-osteoporotic agents peri-operatively is a well-accepted strategy to increase fusion rate and prevent complications. The purpose of this study was to investigate effectiveness of teriparatide and bisphosphonate on fusion surgery of thoracic and lumbar spine.

Methods

We searched EMBASE and PubMed for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and prospective comparative studies using teriparatide or bisphosphonate in peri-operative spinal fusion surgery. Our synthesized data of fusion rate, Oswestry disability index (ODI), and adverse event in contrast-based network meta-analysis. Pooled results were presented in risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI).

Results

Our search hit eight RCTs and three prospective studies with 676 patients receiving spinal surgery. Pooled result showed that teriparatide+Denosumab leads to significantly higher fusion rate than placebo (RR, 2.84; 95% CI: 1.22 to 6.60) and bisphosphonate (RR, 2.59; 95% CI: 1.13 to 5.96). We did not observe significant finding among placebo, teriparatide, and bisphosphonate in the two network models.

Conclusion

This is the first network meta-analysis providing an overview of the use of teriparatide and bisphosphonate for spinal fusion surgery. Teriparatide treatments are worth to be consider for spinal fusion surgery.

EVALUATION OF INTERBODY FUSION TWO YEARS AFTER LLIF PROCEDURE

ABSTRACT Objectives The LLIF technique, extreme lateral interbody fusion, reaches the disc laterally through the psoas muscle, offering adequate access to the disc space with the added benefit of preventing iatrogenic injury to abdominal vascular structures (aorta and vena cava), the sympathetic plexus (reduces incidence of retrograde ejaculation) and neural structures, that is, preservation of the spinal nerves that cross the posterior aspect of the muscle. The objective of this study is to verify the rates of interbody fusion with the LLIF technique. Methods Retrospective, single center, comparative, non-randomized study. The presence of bone mass with increased hypotransparency in the areas of fusion will be analyzed. For the evaluation of the fusion, the Classification of interbody fusion success: Brantigan, Steffee, Fraser (BSF) will be used. Results Fifty-nine (86%) patients presented complete fusion of the approached level (BSF-3) six months after the procedure. One year after the procedure, 87% of the patients had complete fusion. Similar results were confirmed at two years. Conclusions We conclude that the technique of lateral interbody arthrodesis is safe and effective for the treatment of low back pain, with a fusion rate of 90% in two years. Level of Evidence III. Retrospective study, single center, non-randomized.

Guideline summary review: an evidence-based clinical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of low back pain

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

The North American Spine Society's (NASS) Evidence Based Clinical Guideline for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Low Back Pain features evidence-based recommendations for diagnosing and treating adult patients with nonspecific low back pain. The guideline is intended to reflect contemporary treatment concepts for nonspecific low back pain as reflected in the highest quality clinical literature available on this subject as of February 2016.

PURPOSE

The purpose of the guideline is to provide an evidence-based educational tool to assist spine specialists when making clinical decisions for adult patients with nonspecific low back pain. This article provides a brief summary of the evidence-based guideline recommendations for diagnosing and treating patients with this condition.

STUDY DESIGN

This is a guideline summary review.

METHODS

This guideline is the product of the Low Back Pain Work Group of NASS' Evidence-Based Clinical Guideline Development Committee. The methods used to develop this guideline are detailed in the complete guideline and technical report available on the NASS website. In brief, a multidisciplinary work group of spine care specialists convened to identify clinical questions to address in the guideline. The literature search strategy was developed in consultation with medical librarians. Upon completion of the systematic literature search, evidence relevant to the clinical questions posed in the guideline was reviewed. Work group members utilized NASS evidentiary table templates to summarize study conclusions, identify study strengths and weaknesses, and assign levels of evidence. Work group members participated in webcasts and in-person recommendation meetings to update and formulate evidence-based recommendations and incorporate expert opinion when necessary. The draft guideline was submitted to an internal and external peer review process and ultimately approved by the NASS Board of Directors.

RESULTS

Eighty-two clinical questions were addressed, and the answers are summarized in this article. The respective recommendations were graded according to the levels of evidence of the supporting literature.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence-based clinical guideline has been created using techniques of evidence-based medicine and best available evidence to aid practitioners in the diagnosis and treatment of adult patients with nonspecific low back pain. The entire guideline document, including the evidentiary tables, literature search parameters, literature attrition flowchart, suggestions for future research, and all of the references, is available electronically on the NASS website at https://www.spine.org/ResearchClinicalCare/QualityImprovement/ClinicalGuidelines.aspx.

Perioperative adverse events after different fusion approaches for single-level lumbar spondylosis

Background

Low back pain from lumbar spondylosis affects a large proportion of the population. In select cases, lumbar fusion may be considered. However, cohort studies have not shown clear differences in long-term outcomes between PSF, TLIF, ALIF, and AP fusion. Thus, differences in perioperative complications might affect choice between these procedures for the given diagnosis. The current study seeks to compare perioperative adverse events for patients with lumbar spondylosis treated with single-level: posterior spinal fusion (PSF), transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), or combined anterior and posterior lumbar fusion (AP fusion).

Methods

Patients with a diagnosis of lumbar spondylosis who underwent single-level lumbar fusion without decompression were identified in the 2010-2016 National Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database. Patients were categorized based on their procedure (PSF, TLIF, ALIF, or AP fusion). Unadjusted Fisher's exact and Pearson's chi-squared tests were used to compare demographics and comorbid factors. Analysis was secondarily done with propensity score matching to address potential differences in patient selection between the study cohorts.

Results

In total, 1816 patients were identified: PSF n=322, TLIF n=800, ALIF n=460, AP fusion n=234. The procedures did not have different thirty-day individual or aggregated (any, serious, minor, or infection) adverse events. Further, propensity score matched analysis also revealed no differences in individual or aggregated thirty-day perioperative events.

Conclusion

The current study demonstrates a lack of difference in thirty-day perioperative adverse events for different fusion procedures performed for lumbar spondylosis, consistent with prior longer-term outcome studies. These findings suggest that patient/surgeon preference and other factors not captured here should be considered to determine the best surgical technique for the select patients with the given diagnosis who are considered for lumbar fusion.

Summary Sentence

Using the NSQIP 2010-2016 databases, this study showed that perioperative adverse events were similar for different surgical approaches of single-level fusion for single-level lumbar spondylosis.

Clinical and radiological comparison of 2 level anterior lumbar interbody fusion with posterolateral fusion and percutaneous pedicle screw in elderly patients with osteoporosis

Retrospective observational cohort study.We used observational measures and retrospective chart reviews to compare elderly patients with osteoporosis who underwent multi-level anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) with either posterolateral fusion (PLF) or percutaneous pedicle screw fixation.Multi-level ALIF with PLF is used to save the posterior element of the spine and improve fusion rates in elderly patients with osteoporosis. To minimize perioperative invasiveness and improve patients' postoperative quality of life, we perform minimal percutaneous screw fixation.Fifty-three elderly patients with osteoporosis who underwent either PLF with open pedicle screw fixation (n = 28) or percutaneous pedicle screw fixation (PPF) (n = 25) for treatment with 2-level ALIF between January 2010 and December 2013 were compared for clinical outcome including operation time, intraoperative and postoperative blood loss, and hospital day and radiological outcome.Average operation times were significantly shorter and intra- and postoperative blood loss was significantly reduced in the PPF group. There were no significant differences, preoperative and postoperative, in observational measures including visual analog scale, Oswestry disability index, and Rolland-Moris disability. There were no significant differences in the degree of lordosis, changes of motion, or adjacent segmental degeneration. Fusion rates were increased in the PLF group compared to the PPF group 6 months post-surgery, but from 1 year to the last follow-up, the rates were statistically equivalent. There were fewer minor complications in the PPF group, and no major complications at all.Two-level ALIF with PPF results in shorter operation times, less blood loss and minor complications, and similar fusion rate as 2-level ALIF with PLF. It; therefore, represents an effective method, leading to rapid recovery and less complications in elderly patients with osteoporosis.

Fusion rate and influence of surgery-related factors in lumbar interbody arthrodesis for degenerative spine diseases: a meta-analysis and systematic review

The aim of this meta-analysis and systematic review is to summarize and critically analyze the influence of surgery-related factors in lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative spine diseases. A systematic review of the literature was carried out with a primary search being performed on Medline through PubMed. The 2009 PRISMA flowchart and checklist were taken into account. Sixty-seven articles were included in the analysis: 48 studies were level IV of evidence, whereas 19 were level III. All interbody fusion techniques analyzed have proved to reach a good fusion rate. An overall mean fusion rate of 93% (95% CI 92-95%, p < 0.001) was estimated pooling the selected studies. The influence of sagittal parameters and cages features in fusion rate was not clear. Autograft is considered the gold standard material. The use of synthetic bone substitutes and biological factors alone or combined with bone graft have shown conflicting results. Low level of evidence studies and high heterogeneity (χ² = 271.4, df = 72, p < 0.001; I² = 73.5%, τ² = 0.05) in data analysis could result in the risk of bias. Further high-quality studies would better clarify these results in the future.

Multilevel Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Combined with Posterior Stabilization in Lumbar Disc Disease-Prospective Analysis of Clinical and Functional Outcomes

Objective  This was a prospective controlled study with lumbar degenerative disc disease patients submitted to instrumented anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) combined with posterior stabilization.

Methods  A sample with 64 consecutive patients was operated by the same surgeons over 4 years. Half of the ALIFs occurred at 2 levels, 43.8% at 3 levels, and 6.25% at 1 level. Interbody cages with integrated screws, filled with bone matrix and bone morphogenetic protein 2, were used.

Results  Half of the patients had undergone previous lumbar spine surgeries, 75% presented with associated degenerative listhesis, and 62.5% had posterior lumbar compression disease. Approximately 56% of the sample had at least 1 risk factor for nonunion. The Oswestry index changed from 71.81 ± 7.22 at the preoperative assessment to 24.75 ± 7.82 at the final follow-up evaluation, while the visual analogue pain scale changed from 7.88 ± 0.70 to 2.44 ± 0.87 ( p  < 0.001). Clinical and functional improvements increased with the number of operated levels, proving the efficacy of multilevel ALIF, performed in 93.75% of the sample. The global complication rate was of 7.82%, with no major complications. No cases of nonunion were observed.

Conclusion  Instrumented ALIF combined with posterior stabilization is a successful option for uni- and multilevel degenerative disc disease of the L3 to S1 segments, even in the significant presence of risk factors for nonunion and of previous lumbar surgeries, assuring very satisfactory clinical-functional and radiographic outcomes with a low medium-term complication rate.

Anterior and Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion With Supplemental Interspinous Process Fixation: Outcomes from a Multicenter, Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Study

Background

Rigid interspinous process fixation (ISPF) has received consideration as an efficient, minimally disruptive technique in supporting lumbar interbody fusion. However, despite advantageous intraoperative utility, limited evidence exists characterizing midterm to long-term clinical outcomes with ISPF. The objective of this multicenter study was to prospectively assess patients receiving single-level anterior (ALIF) or lateral (LLIF) lumbar interbody fusion with adjunctive ISPF.

Methods

This was a prospective, randomized, multicenter (11 investigators), noninferiority trial. All patients received single-level ALIF or LLIF with supplemental ISPF (n = 66) or pedicle screw fixation (PSF; n = 37) for degenerative disc disease and/or spondylolisthesis (grade ≤2). The randomization patient ratio was 2:1, ISPF/PSF. Perioperative and follow-up outcomes were collected (6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months).

Results

For ISPF patients, mean posterior intraoperative outcomes were: blood loss, 70.9 mL; operating time, 52.2 minutes; incision length, 5.5 cm; and fluoroscopic imaging time, 10.4 seconds. Statistically significant improvement in patient Oswestry Disability Index scores were achieved by just 6 weeks after operation (P < .01) and improved out to 12 months for the ISPF cohort. Patient-reported 36-Item Short Form Health Survey and Zurich Claudication Questionnaire scores were also significantly improved from baseline to 12 months in the ISPF cohort (P < .01). A total of 92.7% of ISPF patients exhibited interspinous fusion at 12 months. One ISPF patient (1.5%) required a secondary surgical intervention of possible relation to the posterior instrumentation/procedure.

Conclusion

ISPF can be achieved quickly, with minimal tissue disruption and complication. In supplementing ALIF and LLIF, ISPF supported significant improvement in early postoperative (≤12 months) patient-reported outcomes, while facilitating robust posterior fusion.

Stand-alone anterior lumbar interbody fusion: indications, techniques, surgical outcomes and complications

INTRODUCTION

Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) is a well-established technique to achieve lumbar spine fusion with various indications including degenerative disk disease, spondylolisthesis, recurrent disk herniation, adjacent level disease, pseudoarthrosis, as well as being used as part of the overall strategy to restore sagittal balance. ALIF can be an extremely useful tool in any spine surgeon's armamentarium. However, like any surgical procedure, proper patient selection is key to success. A solid understanding of the biomechanics, careful surgical planning, along with clear knowledge of the advantages and disadvantages of stand-alone ALIF will ensure optimal clinical outcome. Stand-alone ALIF may be a suitable surgical option in carefully selected patients that can provide good clinical results and adequate fusion rates without the need for posterior instrumentation. Areas covered: A brief overview of the indications, techniques, biomechanics, surgical outcome and complications of stand-alone ALIF is provided in this article with a review of the pertinent literature. Expert commentary: In this review we discuss the clinical evidence of using a stand-alone ALIF compared to other fusion techniques of the lumbar spine. The development of interbody cages with integrated screws has increased the arthrodesis rate and improved clinical outcomes while decreasing morbidity and operative time.

The Influence of Common Medical Conditions on the Outcome of Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion

STUDY DESIGN

The authors retrospectively reviewed a consecutive series of 231 patients with anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF).

OBJECTIVE

To determine the correlations among common medical conditions, demographics, and the natural history of lumbar surgery with outcomes of ALIF.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Multiple spinal disorders are treated with ALIF with excellent success rates. Nonetheless, adverse outcomes and complications related to patients' overall demographics, comorbidities, or cigarette smoking have been reported.

METHODS

The age, sex, body mass index (BMI), comorbidities, history of smoking or previous lumbar surgery, operative parameters, and complications of 231 patients who underwent ALIF were analyzed. Regression analyses of all variables with complications and surgical outcomes based on total Prolo scores were performed. Two models predicting Prolo outcome score were generated. The first model used BMI and sex interaction, whereas the second model used sex, level of surgery, presence of diabetes mellitus, and BMI as variables.

RESULTS

At follow-up, the rate of successful fusion was 99%. The overall complication rate was 13.8%, 1.8% of which occurred intraoperatively and 12% during follow-up. The incidence of complications failed to correlate with demographics, comorbidities, smoking, or previous lumbar surgery (P>0.5). ALIF at T12-L4 was the only factor significantly associated with poor patient outcomes (P=0.024). Both models successfully predicted outcome (P=0.05), although the second model did so only for males.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical level of ALIF correlated with poor patient outcomes as measured by Prolo functional scale. BMI emerged as a significant predictor of Prolo total score. Both multivariate models also successfully predicted outcomes. Surgical or follow-up complications were not associated with patients' preoperative status.

Lumbar pseudarthrosis: a review of current diagnosis and treatment

OBJECT Failed solid bony fusion, or pseudarthrosis, is a well-known complication of lumbar arthrodesis. Recent advances in radiographic technology, biologics, instrumentation, surgical technique, and understanding of the local biology have all aided in the prevention and treatment of pseudarthrosis. Here, the current literature on the diagnosis and management of lumbar pseudarthroses is reviewed. METHODS A systematic literature review was conducted using the MEDLINE and Embase databases in order to search for the current radiographie diagnosis and surgical treatment methods published in the literature (1985 to present). Inclusion criteria included: 1) published in English; 2) level of evidence I-III; 3) diagnosis of degenerative lumbar spine conditions and/or history of lumbar spine fusion surgery; and 4) comparative studies of 2 different surgical techniques or comparative studies of imaging modality versus surgical exploration. RESULTS Seven studies met the inclusion criteria for current radiographie imaging used to diagnose lumbar pseudarthrosis. Plain radiographs and thin-cut CT scans were the most common method for radiographie diagnosis. PET has been shown to be a valid imaging modality for monitoring in vivo active bone formation. Eight studies compared the surgical techniques for managing and preventing failed lumbar fusion. The success rates for the treatment of pseudarthrosis are enhanced with the use of rigid instrumentation. CONCLUSIONS Spinal fusion rates have improved secondary to advances in biologies, instrumentation, surgical techniques, and understanding of local biology. Treatment of lumbar pseudarthrosis includes a variety of surgical options such as replacing loose instrumentation, use of more potent biologies, and interbody fusion techniques. Prevention and recognition are important tenets in the algorithm for the management of spinal pseudarthrosis.

PEEK Cages in Lumbar Fusion: Mid-term Clinical Outcome and Radiologic Fusion

STUDY DESIGN

Historical cohort analysis.

OBJECTIVE

Evaluation of mid-term clinical outcome and radiologic fusion in patients treated with a polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cage.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Anterior lumbar interbody fusion can be a good alternative in chronic low back pain when conservative treatment fails. Although titanium alloy cages give good fusion rates, disadvantages are the subsidence of the cage in the adjacent vertebrae and problematic radiologic evaluation of fusion. PEEK cages such as the Synfix-LR cage (Synthes, Switzerland) should overcome this.

METHODS

From December 2004 until August 2007, 95 patients (21 double-level and 74 single-level) with degenerative disk disease from L3-S1 were operated by a single surgeon. The number of reoperations was counted. Radiologic fusion on computed tomography scan was scored with a new scoring system by an independent skeletal radiologist and orthopedic surgeon. Intraobserver agreement and specificity were assessed. Clinical improvement was measured by the Oswestry Disability Index score. The median duration of clinical follow-up was 47.7 months (range 29.9-61.6).

RESULTS

In total, 26 patients were reoperated after a median period of 17.6 months (range 6.7-46.9) of the initial surgery. Of the 26 patients, 23 patients (18 single-level and 5 double-level) were reoperated for symptomatic pseudarthrosis. A moderate agreement (κ=0.36) and a specificity of 70% and 37% for the radiologist and orthopedic surgeon, respectively, were found for scoring bony bridging. The Oswestry Disability Index score improved after initial surgery; however, reoperated patients reported a significantly lower improvement.

CONCLUSIONS

A high number of reoperations after an anterior lumbar interbody fusion procedure with the Synfix-LR cage were found, mainly because of symptomatic pseudarthrosis. The absence of posterior fixation in combination with lower stiffness and the hydrophobic characteristics of PEEK probably lead to insufficient initial stability, creating suboptimal conditions for bony bridging, and thus solid fusion. The proposed ease of the evaluation of radiologic fusion could not be supported. Clinicians should be alert on pseudarthrosis when patients treated with the Synfix-LR cage presented with persisted or aggravated complaints.

Association between compensation status and outcomes in spine surgery: a meta-analysis of 31 studies

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Numerous studies have demonstrated poorer outcomes in patients with Workers' compensation (WC) when compared with those without WC following treatment of various of health conditions, including spine disorders. It is thus important to consider compensation status when assessing treatment outcomes in spine surgery. However, reported strengths of association have varied significantly (1.31-7.22).

PURPOSE

The objective of this study was to evaluate the association of unsatisfactory outcomes on compensation status in spine surgery patients.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

A meta-analysis was performed.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Patient sample is not applicable in this study.

OUTCOME MEASURE

Demographics, type of surgery, country, follow-up time, patient satisfaction, return to work and non-union events were the outcome measures.

METHODS

Both prospective and retrospective studies that compared outcomes between compensated and non-compensated patients in spine surgery were included. Two independent investigators extracted outcome data. The meta-analysis was performed using Revman software. Random effects model was used to calculate risk ratio (RR, 95% confidence interval [CI]) for dichotomous variables.

RESULTS

Thirty-one studies (13 prospective; 18 retrospective) with a total of 3,567 patients were included in the analysis. Follow-up time varied from 4 months to 10 years. Twelve studies involved only decompression; the rest were fusion. Overall RR of an unsatisfactory outcome was 2.12 [1.74, 2.58; p<.001] in patients with WC when compared with those without WC after surgery. The RR of an unsatisfactory outcome in patients with WC, compared with those without, was 2.09 [1.38, 3.17]; p<.01 among studies from Europe and Australia, and 2.14 [1.48, 2.60]; p<.01 among US studies. The RR of decompression-only procedures was 2.53 [1.85, 3.47]; p<.01,and 1.79 [1.45, 2.21]; p<.01 for fusion. Forty-three percent (209 of 491) of patients with WC did not return to work versus 17% (214 of 1250) of those without WC (RR 2.07 [1.43, 2.98]; p<.001). Twenty-five percent (74 of 292) and 13.5% (39 of 287) of patients had non-union in the compensated and non-compensated groups, respectively. This was not statistically significant (RR 1.33 [0.92, 1.91]; p=.07).

CONCLUSIONS

Workers' compensation patients have a two-fold increased risk of an unsatisfactory outcome compared with non-compensated patients after surgery. This association was consistent when studies were grouped by country or procedure. Compensation status must be considered in all surgical intervention studies.

Trends in the surgical treatment of lumbar spine disease in the United States

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

There is a lack of agreement among spine surgeons as to the best surgical treatment modality for many degenerative lumbar diseases. Although there are many studies examining trends in spinal surgery, specific studies reporting the variations in surgical treatment in the United States for these diseases are lacking.

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to analyze trends in lumbar spinal fusion methods for common lumbar pathologies in the United States.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

National insurance database review: 2004-2009.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Data is taken from United Healthcare and represents more than 25 million patients.

OUTCOME MEASURES

No outcomes were measured in this study.

METHODS

Using a private insurance database, we identified patients who underwent one of five types of instrumented single-level lumbar spinal fusion for the 10 most common primary diagnoses. Surgery rates were reviewed from 2004 to 2009 and were stratified according to patient age, patient gender, and region in the United States. Poisson regression analysis was performed to determine regional and demographic differences in treatment modality. The authors received no funds in support of this work.

RESULTS

A total of 23,986 patients met our search criteria. Of the five fusion types, posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) with posterolateral fusion (PLF) was the most common (45%), followed by PLF (19%), anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF, 16%), PLIF (10%), and ALIF with PLF (9%). There was a significant increase in PLIF with PLF (p<.0001), PLIF (p<.0001), PLF (p=.012), ALIF (p<.0001), and ALIF with PLF (p<.0001) from 2004 to 2009. After controlling for gender, there were significant differences between regions for all fusion types (p<.0001). The likelihood of a posterior fusion increased with age. Anterior fusions were more common in the 30- to 49-year-old age range than in patents older than 50. For patients in age groups older than 30, there was an increased number who underwent a circumferential fusion or an ALIF (p<.022). Fusion types were significantly different between genders (p<.026). Both genders had an overall increase in the number of fusions (p<.001) over the time period studied.

CONCLUSIONS

There are large differences in the United States for surgical treatment methods for lumbar spine pathology. These differences are likely multifactorial, with both patient and surgeon traits playing a role. Illustrating these differences will hopefully lead to outcomes research to determine the indications, efficacy, and appropriateness of these surgical methods, an important step on the path toward standardization of care.

The Influence of No Fault Compensation on Functional Outcomes After Lumbar Spine Fusion

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective cohort study and systematic literature review.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the functional outcomes for lumbar spinal fusion in both compensation and noncompensation patients in an environment of universal no fault compensation and then to compare these outcomes with those in worker's compensation and nonworkers compensation cohorts from other countries.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Compensation has an adverse effect on outcomes in spine fusion possibly based on adversarial environment, delayed resolution of claims and care, and increased compensation associated with prolonged disability. It is unclear whether a universal no fault compensation system would provide different outcomes for these patients. New Zealand's Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) provides universal no fault compensation for personal injury secondary to accident and offers an opportunity to compare results with differing provision of compensation.

METHODS

A total of 169 patients undergoing lumbar spinal fusion were assessed preoperatively, at 1 year, and at long-term follow-up out to 14 years, using functional outcome measures and health-related quality-of-life measures. Comparison was made between those covered and not covered by ACC for 3 distinct diagnostic categories. A systematic literature review comparing outcomes in Worker's Compensation and non-Compensation cohorts was also performed.

RESULTS

The functional outcomes for both ACC and non-ACC cohorts were similar, with significant and comparable improvements over the first year that were then sustained out to long-term follow-up for both cohorts. At long-term follow-up, the health-related quality-of-life measures were the same between the 2 cohorts.The literature review revealed a marked difference in outcomes between worker's compensation and non-worker's compensation cohorts with a near universal inferior outcome for the compensation group.

CONCLUSION

The similarities in outcomes of patients undergoing lumbar spine fusion under New Zealand's universal no fault compensation system, when compared with the dramatically inferior outcomes for these patients under other worker's compensation systems, suggest that the system of compensation has a major influence on patient outcomes, and that change of compensation to a universal no fault system is beneficial for patients undergoing lumbar fusion surgery.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

2.

[Minimal invasive circumferential fusion in the management of kyphotic thoracolumbar lesions: Technical note]

INTRODUCTION

Management of spinal kyphotic deformities remains challenging in order to achieve a complete correction of the deformity, stabilize the spine and restore a satisfactory sagittal alignment. The aim of this study was to report the results of a technique combining, during the same operative session: a percutaneous osteosynthesis (with or without decompression) and a minimal invasive corpectomy using an anterior approach.

METHODS

Twelve patients (mean age 54 years old) were included in this single center retrospective study. Kyphotic deformity was related to a trauma in 9 cases, to a tumor in 2 cases and was infectious in the last case. The level involved was L1 in 7 cases, T12 in 3 cases, T10 and L4 in 1 case each. First step of the surgical strategy was a routine posterior percutaneous osteosynthesis. In 5 cases, a complementary minimal invasive decompression was performed using tubular retractors. During the second step, an anterior corpectomy was performed and the vertebral reconstruction was done using telescopic vertebral body prosthesis. Once the last correction was achieved, final locking of the posterior instrumentation was performed.

RESULTS

In the entire series, a short construct was done in 2 cases and a long construct was decided for the 10 other cases depending on the lesion. Mean surgical time was 246 min [173-375] and postoperative blood transfusion was not necessary. Patients were discharged from the hospital on average at day 8 [4-25] according to associated lesions. Based on radiographic analyses, a significant restoration of the vertebral kyphosis (average 17°, P<0.001) and vertebral body height (27% on average, P<0.001) were obtained.

CONCLUSION

Combination of these two minimal invasive techniques allows a circumferential spinal fixation with a low rate of complications and a satisfactory restoration of local sagittal deformity. This strategy is, in our experience, a valuable alternative to conventional techniques. Further studies with a longer follow-up will therefore needed in order to confirm these results.

Clinical outcome of stand-alone ALIF compared to posterior instrumentation for degenerative disc disease: A pilot study and a literature review

The objective of the article was to: a) present results from a case cohort pilot study comparing stand-alone ALIF and TLIF and, b) review the literature on studies comparing the clinical outcome of stand-alone ALIF with posterior instrumentation including TLIF or PLIF, in patients with disabling low back pain resulting from degenerative disc disease. ALIF surgery has previously been linked with certain high risk complications and unfavorable long term fusion results. Newer studies suggest that stand-alone ALIF can possibly be advantageous compared to other types of posterior instrumented interbody fusion for a selected group of DDD patients. The methods and material consisted of a cohort pilot study of patients, with DDD treated with stand-alone ALIF or TLIF followed by a literature review conducted through a comprehensive PubMed database search of the English literature. Studies comparing stand-alone ALIF with posterior instrumented interbody fusion were selected and reviewed. Results from the pilot study, n = 21, showed a reduced perioperative blood loss, shorter operative time and a trend towards better pain reduction and decreased use of opioid analgesics in patients undergoing stand-alone ALIF compared to posterior instrumented fusion with TLIF. The literature review included three studies, n = 630. All three studies were retrospective cohort studies. The average patient follow-up was 2-years but with heterogeneous selected outcomes. Two of three articles documented significant advantages when using stand-alone ALIF on outcomes such as ODI, VAS, surgical time, blood loss and patient satisfaction. No study found stand-alone ALIF inferior in chosen outcomes including fusion. In conclusion the pilot study and the literature review, finds similar clinical outcomes and fusion rates after stand-alone ALIF and posterior interbody fusion. Stand-alone ALIF was associated with a shorter duration of surgery, less perioperative blood loss and a faster improvement post-operatively. Therefore stand-alone ALIF is a viable and important surgical option, which could be considered first choice as surgical treatment.

Artificial total disc replacement versus fusion for lumbar degenerative disc disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study is to compare the effectiveness and safety of artificial total disc replacement (TDR) with fusion for the treatment of lumbar degenerative disc disease (DDD). Spinal fusion is the conventional surgical treatment for lumbar DDD. Recently, TDR has been developed to avoid the negative effects of the fusion by preserving function of the motion segment. Controversy still surrounds regarding whether TDR is better.

METHODS

We systematically searched six electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Clinical, Ovid, BIOSIS and Cochrane registry of controlled clinical trials) to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up to March 2013 in which TDR was compared with the fusion for the treatment of lumbar DDD. Effective data were extracted after the assessment of methodological quality of the trials. Then, we performed the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Seven relevant RCTs with a total of 1,584 patients were included. TDR was more effective in ODI (MD -5.09; 95% CI [-7.33, -2.84]; P < 0.00001), VAS score (MD -5.31; 95% CI [-8.35, -2.28]; P = 0.0006), shorter duration of hospitalization (MD -0.82; 95% CI [-1.38, -0.26]; P = 0.004) and a greater proportion of willing to choose the same operation again (OR 2.32; 95% CI [1.69, 3.20]; P < 0.00001). There were no significant differences between the two treatment methods regarding operating time (MD -44.16; 95% CI [-94.84, 6.52]; P = 0.09), blood loss (MD -29.14; 95% CI [-173.22, 114.94]; P = 0.69), complications (OR 0.72; 95% CI [0.45, 1.14]; P = 0.16), reoperation rate (OR 0.83; 95% CI [0.39, 1.77]; P = 0.63) and the proportion of patients who returned to full-time/part-time work (OR 1.10; 95% CI [0.86, 1.41]; P = 0.47).

CONCLUSION

TDR showed significant safety and efficacy comparable to lumbar fusion at 2 year follow-up. TDR demonstrated superiorities in improved physical function, reduced pain and shortened duration of hospitalization. The benefits of operating time, blood loss, motion preservation and the long-term complications are still unable to be proved.

Indications for anterior lumbar interbody fusion

Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) has become a widely recognized surgical technique for degenerative pathology of the lumbar spine. Spinal fusion has evolved dramatically ever since the first successful internal fixation by Hadra in 1891 who used a posterior approach to wire adjacent cervical vertebrae in the treatment of fracture-dislocation. Advancements were made to reduce morbidity including bone grafting substitutes, metallic hardware instrumentation and improved surgical technique. The controversy regarding which surgical approach is best for treating various pathologies of the lumbar spine still exists. Despite being an established treatment modality, current indications of ALIF are yet to be clearly defined in the literature. This article discusses the current literature on indications on ALIF surgery.

Allograft cellular bone matrix in extreme lateral interbody fusion: preliminary radiographic and clinical outcomes

Introduction. Extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF) is a minimally disruptive alternative for anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Recently, synthetic and allograft materials have been increasingly used to eliminate donor-site pain and complications secondary to autogenous bone graft harvesting. The clinical use of allograft cellular bone graft has potential advantages over autograft by eliminating the need to harvest autograft while mimicking autograft's biologic function. The objective of this study was to examine 12-month radiographic and clinical outcomes in patients who underwent XLIF with Osteocel Plus, one such allograft cellular bone matrix. Methods. Forty (40) patients were treated at 61 levels with XLIF and Osteocel Plus and included in the analysis. Results. No complications were observed. From preoperative to 12-month postoperative followup, ODI improved 41%, LBP improved 55%, leg pain improved 43.3%, and QOL (SF-36) improved 56%. At 12 months, 92% reported being “very” or “somewhat” satisfied with their outcome and 86% being either “very” or “somewhat likely” to choose to undergo the procedure again. Complete fusion was observed in 90.2% (55/61) of XLIF levels. Conclusions. Complete interbody fusion with Osteocel Plus was shown in 90.2% of XLIF levels, with the remaining 9.8% being partially consolidated and progressing towards fusion at 12 months.

Instrumented circumferential fusion for tuberculosis of the dorso-lumbar spine. A single or double stage procedure?

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to present our experience in treating dorso-lumbar tuberculosis by one-stage posterior circumferential fusion and to compare this group with a historical group treated by anterior debridement followed by postero-lateral fusion and stabilization.

METHODS

Between 2003 and 2008, 32 patients with active spinal tuberculosis were treated by one-stage posterior circumferential fusion and prospectively followed for a minimum of two years. Pain severity was measured using Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Neurological assessment was done using the Frankel scale. The operative data, clinical, radiological, and functional outcomes were also compared to a similar group of 25 patients treated with anterior debridement and fusion, followed 10-14 days later by posterior stabilization and postero-lateral fusion.

RESULTS

The mean operative time and duration of hospital stay were significantly longer in the two-stage group. The mean estimated blood loss was also larger, though insignificantly, in the two-stage group. The incidence of complications was significantly lower in the one-stage group. At final follow-up, all 34 patients with pre-operative neurological deficits showed at least one Frankel grade of neurological improvement, all 57 patients showed significant improvement of their VAS back pain score, the mean kyphotic angle has significantly improved, all patients achieved solid fusion and 43 (75.4%) patients returned to their pre-disease activity level or work.

CONCLUSION

Instrumented circumferential fusion, whether in one or two stages, is an effective treatment for dorso-lumbar tuberculosis. One-stage surgery, however, is advantageous because it has lower complication rate, shorter hospital stay, less operative time and blood loss.

Nonfusion stabilization of the degenerative lumbar spine

Object

The goal of this study was to assess whether a stable but nonrigid nonfusion implant can stabilize the spine in degenerative diseases and also prevent instability following decompression. Instrumented spondylodesis is a recognized surgical treatment in degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. However, pain can develop at the bone graft donor site and the operative trauma can be very stressful in elderly patients, and it is suspected that there may be increased degenerative changes in the adjacent segments. In 2002, a nonrigid but rotationally stable pedicle screw and rod system was introduced, which could be used without additional fusion (referred to hereafter as the Cosmic system).

Methods

A total of 139 patients with degenerative disease of the lumbar spine underwent spinal stabilization with the Cosmic system without additional spondylodesis. Seventy patients had an additional decompression. The minimum follow-up was 2 years. The perioperative course, the clinical results, and the erect anteroposterior and lateral radiographs were recorded and compared with the preoperative data. The data were obtained from 6 different spine centers in Europe and documented on an Internet platform.

Results

The Oswestry Disability Index score improved from 48.9% to 22.5%, and the visual analog scale score decreased from 7.3 to 2.5. Lumbar lordosis did not change, nor did the adjacent disc height. Eleven patients underwent revision, 4 of them for implant failure. Of the 139 patients, 110 assessed the result as excellent, very good, or good; 24 as fair; and 5 as poor. A total of 122 patients would undergo surgery again. There were no significant differences between patients with or without an additional decompression.

Conclusions

The Cosmic system is a stable but nonrigid posterior nonfusion system. Implant complications are low and the clinical outcome is good. Longer follow-up is necessary to confirm the 2-year results.

Comparison of instrumented posterolateral fusion versus percutaneous pedicle screw fixation combined with anterior lumbar interbody fusion in elderly patients with L5-S1 isthmic spondylolisthesis and foraminal stenosis

OBJECT

The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of treating L5-S1 isthmic spondylolisthesis and foraminal stenosis in elderly patients with instrumented posterolateral fusion (PLF) versus percutaneous pedicle screw fixation (PSF) combined with anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF).

METHODS

Forty-nine patients older than 65 years of age with L5-S1 isthmic spondylolisthesis and symptomatic foraminal stenosis who underwent ALIF were retrospectively analyzed. An ALIF with instrumented PLF (Group A) was performed in 23 patients, and ALIF with percutaneous PSF (Group B) was performed in 26 patients. Data were collected preoperatively and at 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, and every subsequent year. A comparative analysis was made between the 2 groups using clinical (visual analog pain scale [VAS] and modified MacNab criteria) and radiological (dynamic plain radiographs and CT scans) measures.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up duration was 30.3 months (range 24-47 months). The mean preoperative scores on the VAS for low-back pain in Groups A and B were 5.9 and 5.7, respectively, decreasing to 1.4 and 3.6, respectively, at 6 months after surgery (p = 0.001), whereas VAS scores for low-back pain in Groups A and B at 2 years postoperatively were 1.3 and 2.3, respectively (p = 0.005). The mean preoperative scores on the VAS for leg pain in Groups A and B were 7.5 and 7.8, respectively, decreasing at 6 months after surgery to 1.2 and 1.6, respectively (p = 0.201), whereas VAS scores for leg pain in Groups A and B at 2 years postoperatively were 1.3 and 1.4, respectively (p = 0.803). The rates of patients with excellent or good outcomes in terms of the modified MacNab criteria in Groups A and B were 91.3% and 69.2%, respectively, at 6 months after surgery (p = 0.010). Those rates in Groups A and B at 2 years after the operation were 91.3% and 84.6%, respectively (p = 0.203). The fusion rates in Groups A and B were 91.3% and 57.7%, respectively, at 6 months after surgery (p = 0.008), whereas the fusion rates in Groups A and B were 91.3% and 76.9%, respectively, at 2 years after surgery (p = 0.103). There was no significant difference in terms of the complication rate between Group A (4.3%) and B (3.8%) (p = 0.691).

CONCLUSIONS

A relatively longer time until, and lower rate for, fusion in the patients treated with ALIF and percutaneous PSF were noted, which may be correlated with a relatively lower rate of patients with excellent or good outcomes. These results seem to favor ALIF with instrumented PLF rather than ALIF with percutaneous PSF in the treatment of elderly patients with L5-S1 isthmic spondylolisthesis and foraminal stenosis. However, additional long-term follow-up, a larger number of patients, and well-designed studies are necessary for a more rigorous evaluation of the outcome of patients treated using these surgical techniques.

[Monosegmental anterior lumbar interbody fusion with the SynFix-LR™ device. A prospective 2-year follow-up study]

BACKGROUND

With anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) alone, the morbidity associated with a posterior approach can be avoided. In this study we evaluated the use of a PEEK cage with an integrated angle-stable locking plate (SynFix-LR™).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Thirty-two patients with osteochondrosis at L4/5 or L5/S1 were treated with the SynFix-LR™. Follow-up at 0, 3, 6, 9, 12, and 24 months included the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), visual analog scale (VAS), and questions regarding satisfaction and use of pain medication. The fusion rate was assessed by X-ray and computed tomography (CT) examination.

RESULTS

A significant reduction of the ODI and VAS was achieved (p<0.05) with a high rate of patient satisfaction. After 2 years, 79% of the patients were able to dispense with long-term use of analgesics. We observed a fusion rate of 93% (X-ray) and 70% (CT) at final follow-up.

CONCLUSION

The SynFix-LR™ device is a suitable option for the treatment of monosegmental osteochondrosis at L4/5 and L5/S1 with comparable or superior results in comparison to posterior or combined fusion techniques.

Pedicle screw-based posterior dynamic stabilization in the lumbar spine

Traditionally, management of spinal pathology has centered on decompression, correction of deformity, and stabilization. Deformity correction and stabilization have been accomplished largely by spinal fusion at the pathologic levels. In addition to the risks and potential complications, there are sequelae to a successful fusion. Therefore, attention is being directed toward disk replacement in the lumbar spine. In addition to their preserving motion in the anterior column, several posterior motion-preservation devices have been developed in an effort to prevent pathologic motion at both a decompressed level and a segment adjacent to a fusion. Initial studies suggest that the results of posterior dynamic stabilization may be comparable to those of fusion; however, longer periods of clinical and radiographic follow-up are required to fully define the role these devices may play in the management of the degenerative lumbar spine.

Anterior lumbar interbody fusion with stand-alone interbody cage in treatment of lumbar intervertebral foraminal stenosis : comparative study of two different types of cages

OBJECTIVE

This retrospective study was performed to evaluate the clinical and radiological results of anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) using two different stand-alone cages in the treatment of lumbar intervertebral foraminal stenosis (IFS).

METHODS

A total of 28 patients who underwent ALIF at L5-S1 using stand-alone cage were studied [Stabilis(R) (Stryker, Kalamazoo, MI, USA); 13, SynFix-LR(R) (Synthes Bettlach, Switzerland); 15]. Mean follow-up period was 27.3 +/- 4.9 months. Visual analogue pain scale (VAS) and Oswestry disability index (ODI) were assessed. Radiologically, the change of disc height, intervertebral foraminal (IVF) height and width at the operated segment were measured, and fusion status was defined.

RESULTS

Final mean VAS (back and leg) and ODI scores were significantly decreased from preoperative values (5.6 +/- 2.3 --> 2.3 +/- 2.2, 6.3 +/- 3.2 --> 1.6 +/- 1.6, and 53.7 +/- 18.6 --> 28.3 +/- 13.1, respectively), which were not different between the two devices groups. In Stabilis(R) group, postoperative immediately increased disc and IVF heights (10.09 +/- 4.15 mm --> 14.99 +/- 1.73 mm, 13.00 +/- 2.44 mm --> 16.28 +/- 2.23 mm, respectively) were gradually decreased, and finally returned to preoperative value (11.29 +/- 1.67 mm, 13.59 +/- 2.01 mm, respectively). In SynFix-LR(R) group, immediately increased disc and IVF heights (9.60 +/- 2.82 mm --> 15.61 +/- 0.62 mm, 14.01 +/- 2.53 mm --> 21.27 +/- 1.93 mm, respectively) were maintained until the last follow up (13.72 +/- 1.21 mm, 17.87 +/- 2.02 mm, respectively). The changes of IVF width of each group was minimal pre- and postoperatively. Solid arthrodesis was observed in 11 patients in Stabilis group (11/13, 84.6%) and 13 in SynFix-LR(R) group (13/15, 86.7%).

CONCLUSION

ALIF using stand-alone cage could assure good clinical results in the treatment of symptomatic lumbar IFS in the mid-term follow up. A degree of subsidence at the operated segment was different depending on the device type, which was higher in Stabilis(R) group.

A meta-analysis of artificial total disc replacement versus fusion for lumbar degenerative disc disease

Lumbar fusion has been developed for several decades and became the standard surgical treatment for symptomatic lumbar degenerative disc disease (DDD). Artificial total disc replacement (TDR), as an alternative for spinal arthrodesis, is becoming more commonly employed treating lumbar DDD. It is still uncertain whether TDR is more effective and safer than lumbar fusion. To systematically compare the effectiveness and safety of TDR to that of the fusion for the treatment of lumbar DDD, we performed a meta-analysis. Cochrane review methods were used to analyze all relevant randomized controlled trials published up to July 2009. Five relevant randomized controlled trials involving 837 patients were identified. Patients in TDR group have slightly better functioning and less back or leg pain without clinical significance, and significantly higher satisfaction status in TDR group compared with lumbar fusion group at the 2-year follow-up. But these outcomes are highly influenced by the study with BAK cage interbody fusion, the function/pain and patient satisfaction status are no longer significantly different between two groups after excluding this study. At 5 years, these outcomes are not significantly different between comparing groups. The complication and reoperation rate of two groups are similar both at 2 and at 5 years. In conclusion, TDR does not show significant superiority for the treatment of lumbar DDD compared with fusion. The benefits of motion preservation and the long-term complications are still unable to be concluded. More high-quality RCTs with long-term follow-up are needed.

Segment-by-segment stabilization for degenerative disc disease: a hybrid technique

Patients with multisegmental degenerative disc disease (DDD) resistant to conservative therapy are typically treated with either fusion or non-fusion surgical techniques. The two techniques can be applied at adjacent levels using Dynesys (Zimmer GmbH, Winterthur, Switzerland) implants in a segment-by-segment treatment of multiple level DDD. The objective of this study was to evaluate the clinical and radiological outcome of patients treated using this segment-by-segment application of Dynesys in some levels as a non-fusion device and in other segments in combination with a PLIF as a fusion device. A consecutive case series is reported. The sample included 16 females and 15 males with a mean age of 53.6 years (range 26.3-76.4 years). Mean follow-up time was 39 months (range 24-90 months). Preoperative Oswestry disability index (ODI), back- and leg-pain scores (VAS) were compared to postoperative status. Fusion success and system failure were assessed by an independent reviewer who analyzed AP and lateral X-rays. Back pain improved from 7.3 +/- 1.7 to 3.4 +/- 2.7 (p < 0.000002), leg pain from 6.0 +/- 2.9 to 2.3 +/- 2.9 (p < 0.00006), and ODI from 51.6 +/- 13.2% to 28.7 +/- 18.0% (p < 0.00001). Screw loosening occurred in one of a total of 222 implanted screws (0.45%). The results indicate that segment-by-segment treatment with Dynesys in combination with interbody fusion is technically feasible, safe, and effective for the surgical treatment of multilevel DDD.