A retrospective review comparing two-year patient-reported outcomes, costs, and healthcare resource utilization for TLIF vs. PLF for single-level degenerative spondylolisthesis

Effect of Lateral Surgery Compared with Posterior Surgery on Lumbar Degenerative Disease: A Meta-Analysis of 41 Cohort Studies

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of the lateral approach and posterior approach in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases.

METHODS

Through a systematic search of relevant articles published on or before July 20, 2023, in the Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane libraries, the 2 authors independently extracted data and used the Newcastle‒Ottawa scale to evaluate the quality of the included studies. Using Stata16 software, the continuous variables were presented as the standard mean deviation, and the bipartite variables were analyzed using the pooled odds ratio with 95% confidence interval.

RESULTS

A total of 13,892 articles were screened and 10,908 studies were identified after deleting duplicates, of which 41 met the criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis showed that the lateral approach was superior to the posterior approach in reducing blood loss, operation time, and hospital stay. At the same time, compared with the posterior approach, the lateral approach has more advantages in the long-term Japanese Orthopaedic Association score and Oswestry Disability Index score, adjusting mid- and long-term LL and short- and long-term disc height.

CONCLUSIONS

Lateral and posterior surgery have similar clinical effects in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases and can significantly reduce pain and improve postoperative SL. At the same time, the lateral approach has more advantages in improving long-term quality of life, reducing the long-term disability index, adjusting mid- and long-term LL and short- and long-term disc height.

Fusion's Location and Quality within the Fixated Segment Following Transforaminal Interbody Fusion (TLIF)

Transforaminal interbody fusion (TLIF) has gained increased popularity over recent decades and is being employed as an established surgical treatment for several lumbar spine pathologies, including degenerative spondylosis, spondylolisthesis, infection, tumor and some cases of recurrent disc herniation. Despite the seemingly acceptable fusion rates after TLIF (up to 94%), the literature is still limited regarding the specific location and quality of fusion inside the fixated segment. In this single-institution, retrospective population-based study, we evaluated all post-operative computed tomography (CT) of patients who underwent TLIF surgery at a medium-sized medical center between 2010 and 2020. All CT studies were performed at a minimum of 1 year following the surgery, with a median of 2 years. Each CT study was evaluated for post-operative fusion, specifically in the posterolateral and intervertebral body areas. The fusion's quality was determined and classified in each area according to Lee's criteria, as follows: (1) definitive fusion: definitive bony trabecular bridging across the graft host interface; (2) probable fusion: no definitive bony trabecular crossing but with no gap at the graft host interface; (3) possible arthrosis: no bony trabecular crossing with identifiable gap at the graft host interface; (4) definite pseudarthrosis: no traversing trabecular bone with definitive gap. A total of 48 patients were included in this study. The median age was 55.6 years (SD ± 15.4). The median time from surgery to post-operative CT was 2 years (range: 1-10). Full definitive fusion in both posterolateral and intervertebral areas was observed in 48% of patients, and 92% showed definitive fusion in at least one area (either posterolateral or intervertebral body area). When comparing the posterolateral and the intervertebral area fusion rates, a significantly higher definitive fusion rate was observed in the posterolateral area as compared to the intervertebral body area in the long term follow-up (92% vs. 52%, p < 0.001). In the multivariable analysis, accounting for several confounding factors, including the number of fixated segments and cage size, the results remained statistically significant (p = 0.048). In conclusion, a significantly higher definitive fusion rate at the posterolateral area compared to the intervertebral body area following TLIF surgery was found. Surgeons are encouraged to employ bone augmentation material in the posterolateral area (as the primary site of fusion) when performing TLIF surgery.

Methodology of economic evaluations in spine surgery: a systematic review and qualitative assessment

OBJECTIVES

The present study is a systematic review conducted as part of a methodological approach to develop evidence-based recommendations for economic evaluations in spine surgery. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the methodology and quality of currently available clinical cost-effectiveness studies in spine surgery.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic literature review.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, EconLit and The National Institute for Health Research Economic Evaluation Database were searched through 8 December 2022.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

Studies were included if they met all of the following eligibility criteria: (1) spine surgery, (2) the study cost-effectiveness and (3) clinical study. Model-based studies were excluded.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

The following data items were extracted and evaluated: pathology, number of participants, intervention(s), year, country, study design, time horizon, comparator(s), utility measurement, effectivity measurement, costs measured, perspective, main result and study quality.

RESULTS

130 economic evaluations were included. Seventy-four of these studies were retrospective studies. The majority of the studies had a time horizon shorter than 2 years. Utility measures varied between the EuroQol 5 dimensions and variations of the Short-Form Health Survey. Effect measures varied widely between Visual Analogue Scale for pain, Neck Disability Index, Oswestry Disability Index, reoperation rates and adverse events. All studies included direct costs from a healthcare perspective. Indirect costs were included in 47 studies. Total Consensus Health Economic Criteria scores ranged from 2 to 18, with a mean score of 12.0 over all 130 studies.

CONCLUSIONS

The comparability of economic evaluations in spine surgery is extremely low due to different study designs, follow-up duration and outcome measurements such as utility, effectiveness and costs. This illustrates the need for uniformity in conducting and reporting economic evaluations in spine surgery.

Lumbo-sacral pedicular aplasia diagnosis and treatment: a systematic literature review and case report

Aplasia of the lumbar pedicle is a rare condition, frequently associated with low back pain. Its recognition is fundamental in the definition of the correct treatment. We performed a literature review in order to clarify how to best diagnose and treat this rare anatomical condition. A comprehensive literature search for studies published through October 2020 was performed, using the following algorithm: "aplasia" OR "aplastic" OR "hypoplasia" OR "hypoplastic" OR "absent" OR absence" AND "pedicle" AND "lumbar" OR "sacral" OR "lumbosacral". References from reviewed papers were further evaluated for the inclusion of other relevant studies. Eighteen studies were included in the systematic review for a total of 24 adult patients. Another case of left L5 pedicle aplasia treated at our hospital has been described and included in the present review. This anatomical condition may be suspected in plain x-Ray, but CT scan 3D reconstructions may help to confirm the diagnosis in equivocal cases. Low-back pain and radiculopathy are the main signs and symptoms. The treatment was described in 14 cases. Eight patients underwent surgical intervention. In cases with spondylolisthesis, fusion surgery was performed with different techniques, obtaining an excellent clinical outcome. Pedicular aplasia is a rare condition that must be recognized in patients with a low back. When it is associated with spondylolisthesis, fusion surgery should be the preferred option.

Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with a silicon nitride cage demonstrates early radiographic fusion

BACKGROUND

Degeneration of the lumbar spine is common in aging adults and reflects a significant morbidity burden in this population. In selected patients that prove unresponsive to non-surgical treatment, posterior lumbar fusion (PLF) surgery, with or without adjunctive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) can relieve pain and improve function. We describe here the radiographic fusion rates for PLF versus TLIF, using an intervertebral spinal cage made of silicon nitride ceramic (chemical formula Si₃N₄).

METHODS

This retrospective cohort analysis enrolled 99 patients from August 2013 to January 2017; 17 had undergone PLF at 24 levels, while 82 had undergone TLIF at 104 levels. All operations were performed by a single surgeon at one institution. Radiographic and clinical outcomes were compared between PLF and TLIF at 2 and 6 weeks and then at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months.

RESULTS

TLIF patients fused at higher rates compared to PLF at the 3-month (38.5% vs. 8.3%, P=0.006), 6-month (78.7% vs. 35.0%, P<0.001) and 12-month time periods (97.9% vs. 81.3%, P=0.018), with no difference at 24 months (100% vs. 94.4%, P=0.102). Index level segmental motion was significantly less and intervertebral disc height was improved in TLIF over PLF at all follow up intervals. Foraminal height was only greater in early follow up periods (2 weeks, 6 weeks and 3 months). TLIF patients experienced lover rates of PI-LL mismatch which was maintained across long term follow-up. Pelvic tilt was lower following TLIF compared to PLF, with no differences in complication rates between study groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our retrospective series demonstrated that TLIF performed with silicon nitride interbody cages led to earlier radiographic fusion, greater restoration of disc and foraminal height, increased segmental rigidity and improved sagittal alignment when compared to PLF alone.

Economic Analysis of Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgery Utilizing a Curved Bone Removal Device

BACKGROUND

Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) represents a commonly performed spinal procedure that poses a significant financial burden on patients, hospitals and insurers. Reducing these costs, while maintaining efficacy, may be assisted by a new powered endplate preparation device, designed to shorten procedural time while offering positive impacts on other elements that contribute to the cost of care.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to assess and compare the individual cost elements of TLIF procedures with and without the use of the device, to determine whether application of this technology translated into any material procedural savings.

METHODS

The records of 208 single-level TLIF procedures in a single hospital were reviewed. Surgical time, length of hospital stay, blood loss, infection rate, and other parameters were compared for the cases where the device was used (device group; n = 143) and cases which used standard tools (control group; n = 65). The cost per unit of each element was derived from the literature, online resources, and the hospital's financial department.

RESULTS

The analysis revealed a shorter surgery duration in the device group (23 min, after controlling for procedure year and patient characteristics; statistically significant at p < 0.001) and lower complication and readmission rates (p = 0.67 and p = 0.21, respectively) associated with the use of the device, leading to a statistically significant cost reduction of approximately 2060 US dollars (US$) (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

The study suggests that use of the device may lead to a cost reduction and shorter procedure without deteriorating the clinical outcome.

Cost-effectiveness of open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (OTLIF) versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MITLIF): a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

The number of performed instrumented lumbar spine surgeries and associated health-care-related costs has increased over the last decades, and will increase further in the future. With the consistent growth of health-care-related costs, cost-effectiveness of surgical techniques is of major relevance. Common indications for instrumented lumbar spine surgery are spondylolisthesis and degenerative disease. A commonly used technique is the open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (OTLIF). Nowadays, there is an increasing interest in the minimally invasive variation of this technique (minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion [MITLIF]). Currently available literature describes that MITLIF has comparable or even better clinical results compared to OTLIF. Cost-effectiveness of MITLIF and OTLIF is important considering the growing health-care related costs, although no consensus has been reached regarding the most cost-effective technique. In this systematic review, previous literature concerning costs and cost-effectiveness of OTLIF was compared with MITLIF in patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis or degenerative disease. Furthermore, methodological quality of included studies was assessed.

PURPOSE

This study aims to evaluate the current literature on cost-effectiveness of OTLIF compared MITLIF to in patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis or degenerative disease.

STUDY DESIGN

This study is a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

STUDY SAMPLE

Clinical studies reporting costs or cost-effectiveness for either OTLIF or MITLIF in patients with spondylolisthesis, lumbar instability, or degenerative disease were included.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The following data items were evaluated: study design, study population, utility measurement tool, gained quality adjusted life years (QALYs), cost sources, health care and societal perspective costs, total costs, costs per QALY (cost-effectiveness) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted using databases PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, Cochrane, Clinical Trials, Current Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, NHS Centre for Review and Dissemination, Econlit and Web of Science on studies reporting OTLIF or MITLIF, spondylolisthesis or lumbar instability or degenerative disease, and costs. Relevant studies were selected and reviewed independently by two authors. For comparison, all costs were converted to American dollars with the reference year 2018.

RESULTS

After duplicate removal, a total of 892 studies were identified. Eventually, 32 studies were included. Nine studies compared OTLIF and MITLIF directly. All studies mentioned health care perspective costs. Seven studies mentioned societal perspective costs. Cost-effectiveness of OTLIF was mentioned in five studies, ranging from $47,303/QALY to $218,766/QALY. Cost-effectiveness of MITLIF was mentioned in one study, $121,105/QALY. Meta-analysis of hospital perspective costs showed a significant overall effect in favor of MITLIF, with a mean difference of $2,650. There was great heterogeneity in health care and societal perspective costs due to different in-, and exclusion factors, baseline characteristics, and calculation methods. Overall quality of studies was low.

CONCLUSIONS

OTLIF and MITLIF appear to be expensive interventions when using a threshold of $50,000/QALY. Results of this study and previous literature suggest that MITLIF is more cost-effective compared to OTLIF. Considering the increase in health care costs of instrumented spine surgery, cost-effectiveness could be one of the factors in surgical decision-making. Prospective randomized studies directly comparing cost-effectiveness of OTLIF and MITLIF from both hospital and societal perspectives are needed to obtain higher level of evidence.

Comparison of (Partial) economic evaluations of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) versus Posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in adults with lumbar spondylolisthesis: A systematic review

Introduction

The demand for spinal fusion surgery has increased over the last decades. Health care providers should take costs and cost-effectiveness of these surgeries into account. Open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) are two widely used techniques for spinal fusion. Earlier research revealed that TLIF is associated with less blood loss, shorter surgical time and sometimes shorter length of hospital stay, while effectiveness of both techniques on back and/or leg pain are equal. Therefore, TLIF could result in lower costs and be more cost-effective than PLIF. This is the first systematic review comparing direct and indirect (partial) economic evaluations of TLIF with PLIF in adults with lumbar spondylolisthesis. Furthermore, methodological quality of included studies was assessed.

Methods

Searches were conducted in eight databases for reporting on eligibility criteria; TLIF or PLIF, lumbar spondylolisthesis or lumbar instability, and cost. Costs were converted to United States Dollars with reference year 2020. Study quality was assessed using the bias assessment tool of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, the Level of Evidence guidelines of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine and the Consensus Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) list.

Results

Of a total of 693 studies, 16 studies were included. Comparison of TLIF and PLIF could only be made indirectly, since no study compared TLIF and PLIF directly. There was a large heterogeneity in health care and societal perspective costs due to different in-, and exclusion criteria, baseline characteristics and the use of costs or charges in calculations. Health care perspective costs, calculated with hospital costs, ranged from $15,867-$43,217 in TLIF-studies and $32,662 in one PLIF-study. Calculated with hospital charges, it ranged from $8,964-$51,469 in TLIF-studies and $21,838-$93,609 in two PLIF-studies. Societal perspective costs and cost-effectiveness, only mentioned in TLIF-studies, ranged from $5,702/QALY-$48,538/QALY and $50,092/QALY-$90,977/QALY, respectively. Overall quality of studies was low.

Conclusions

This systematic review shows that TLIF and PLIF are expensive techniques. Moreover, firm conclusions about the preferable technique, based on (partial) economic evaluations, cannot be drawn due to limited studies and heterogeneity. Randomized prospective trials and full economical evaluations with direct TLIF and PLIF comparison are needed to obtain high levels of evidence. Furthermore, development of guidelines to perform adequate economic evaluations, specified for the field of interest, will be useful to minimize heterogeneity and maximize transferability of results.

Trial registration

Prospero-database registration number: CRD42020196869.

A Comparison of Revision Rates and Patient-Reported Outcomes for a 2-Level Posterolateral Fusion Augmented With Single Versus 2-Level Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective, single institution, multisurgeon case control series.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether there are differences in reoperation rates or outcomes for patients undergoing 2-level posterolateral fusion (PLF) augmented by a transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) at only one of the levels or at both.

METHODS

A total of 416 patients were identified who underwent 2-level PLF with a TLIF at either one of those levels (n = 183) or at both (n = 233) with greater than 1-year follow-up. Demographic, surgical, radiographic, and clinical data was reviewed for each patient. These included age, sex, race, body mass index, smoking status, Charleston Comorbidity Index, operative time, estimated blood loss, length of stay, and patient-reported outcome measures.

RESULTS

Each cohort underwent 24 reoperations. Although the number of overall reoperations was not significantly different (P > .05), among the reoperation types, there were significantly more reoperations for adjacent segment disease in the 2-level group compared to the 1-level group (19 vs 12, P = .04). There was no difference in reoperation for pseudarthrosis between the groups (P > .05). Although both groups experienced significant improvements in Oswestry Disability Index (P < .001) and Short Form-12 health questionnaire (P < .001), there were no differences between improvements for 1- versus 2-level cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients undergoing 2-level PLF in the setting of a TLIF, using a TLIF at one versus both levels does not seem to influence reoperation rates or outcomes. However, reoperation rates for adjacent segment disease are increased in the setting of a 2-level PLF augmented by a 2-level TLIF.

Comparison of extreme lateral approach with posterior approach in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases: A meta-analysis of clinical and imaging findings

OBJECTIVE

To compare clinical and imaging findings between extreme lateral lumbar interbody fusion (XLIF) and posterior fusion (PF) via meta-analysis for the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases.

METHODS

English papers reporting clinical and imaging findings for the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases with XLIF and PF published electronically in the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases from January 2006 to August 2019 were retrieved. Two authors independently extracted data and evaluated the quality of the included literature. Meta-analysis of outcome measures was performed using Stata 14 and RevMan 5.3 software.

RESULTS

This meta-analysis included 744 patients from nine studies, two of which were prospective studies, while the others were retrospective studies. The quality of each study was determined to be high. The meta-analysis showed no significant differences in the operative time, length of hospital stay, clinical effectiveness, and improvement in postoperative global sagittal alignment between two approaches (P > 0.05). However, XLIF was significantly better than PF in reducing intraoperative blood loss and recovery of local sagittal alignment (P < 0.05). Moreover, the high incidence of postoperative complications were detected in XLIF group (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Both surgical approaches have equally promising clinical effectiveness for the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases. Although XLIF can reduce intraoperative blood loss and obtain better postoperative local sagittal alignment than PF, the high incidence of postoperative complications should prompt us to consider why XLIF procedure is still being offered to our patients and how we can reduce these complications. In addition, any conclusions should be taken with caution because of the mix of prospective and retrospective studies, and the high heterogeneity and bias.

Fusion technique does not affect short-term patient-reported outcomes for lumbar degenerative disease

BACKGROUND/CONTEXT

Degenerative lumbar disease can be addressed via an anterior or posterior approach, and with or without the use of an interbody cage. Although several studies have compared the type of approach and technique, there is a lack of literature assessing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and radiographic parameters between different fusion techniques.

PURPOSE

To determine whether the surgical approach and fusion technique for lumbar degenerative disease had an effect on short-term PROMs and radiographic parameters.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

Retrospective Cohort Study.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Three hundred and ninety-one patients who underwent a 1-3 level lumbar spine fusion procedure at a high-volume academic center were retrospectively identified. Patients were divided into three groups based on the type of fusion they underwent: posterolateral fusion (PLF), anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF).

OUTCOME MEASURES

PROMs: Short Form-12 (SF-12) Physical Component Score (PCS) and Mental Component Score (MCS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Visual Analog Score (VAS) Back, VAS Leg. Spinopelvic measurements: Pelvic Tilt (PT), Sacral Slope (SS), Pelvic Incidence (PI), Lumbar Lordosis (LL), Segmental Lordosis (SL), PI-LL mismatch.

METHODS

Patients with less than 1-year follow-up were excluded from the cohort. Pre- and postoperative spinopelvic measurements were obtained for all patients. Univariate analysis (Chi-squared/Fisher's exact test or ANOVA test with post-hoc Bonferroni test) was used to compare among the three groups in the PROMs and radiographic spinopelvic parameters. Multiple linear regression was used to determine if fusion technique was an independent predictor of change in each patient outcome.

RESULTS

Two hundred and sixteen patients were included in the PLF group, 33 patients in the ALIF group, and 142 patients in the TLIF group. The PLF group was significantly older at baseline (p<.001) and had lower preoperative diagnosis rates of degenerative scoliosis and disc herniations (p<.001), whereas the ALIF group underwent a higher proportion of three-level fusions (p<.001). There was no significant difference in spinopelvic parameters preoperatively, however the ALIF group showed significantly more improvement in SL postoperatively (p=.004) than the PLF and TLIF groups. Within each group, SL improved for the PLF and ALIF groups (p=.002 for both), but not for the TLIF group (p=.238). Comparing patient outcomes, the ALIF group reported lower preoperative VAS Leg scores (p=.031), however, this difference resolved postoperatively. Stratifying for preoperative diagnosis, there were no significant differences in outcomes, except for a greater improvement in VAS Leg scores for degenerative scoliosis patients undergoing ALIF. Using multivariate analysis, fusion technique was not found to be a significant predictor of change in any patient outcome or in odds of revision.

CONCLUSIONS

Lumbar degenerative disease can be treated with several different fusion techniques, however, the relationship between type of fusion and PROMs is not established. Based on the findings in this study, the ALIF group showed greater improvement in SL compared with the PLF and TLIF groups, however, there was no difference noted in overall LL, PI-LL mismatch or other spinopelvic parameters. Despite these radiographic findings, patient outcome measures remained similar between all three fusion types.

Treatment for Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: Current Concepts and New Evidence

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Current guidelines for the optimal treatment degenerative spondylolisthesis are weak and based on limited high-quality evidence.

RECENT FINDINGS

There is some moderate evidence that decompression alone may be a feasible treatment with lower surgical morbidity and similar outcomes to fusion when performed in a select population with a low-grade slip. Similarly, addition of interbody fusion may be best suited to a subset of patients with high-grade degenerative spondylolisthesis, although this remains controversial. Minimally invasive techniques are increasingly being utilized for both decompression and fusion surgeries with more and more studies showing similar outcomes and lower postoperative morbidity for patients. This will likely be an area of continued intense research. Finally, the role of spondylolisthesis reduction will likely be determined as further investigation into optimal sagittal balance and spinopelvic parameters is conducted. Future identification of ideal thresholds for sagittal vertical axis and slip angle that will prevent progression and reoperation will play an important role in surgical treatment planning. Current evidence supports surgical treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis. While posterolateral spinal fusion remains the treatment of choice, the use of interbodies and decompressions without fusion may be efficacious in certain populations. However, additional high-quality evidence is needed, especially in newer areas of practice such as minimally invasive techniques and sagittal balance correction.