Outcome of decompression with and without fusion in spinal stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis in relation to preoperative pain pattern: a register study of 1,624 patients

Clinical Utility of an Intervertebral Motion Metric for Deciding on the Addition of Instrumented Fusion in Degenerative Spondylolisthesis

STUDY DESIGN

A prospective single-arm clinical study.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the clinical utility of an intervertebral motion metric by determining the proportion of patients for whom it changed their surgical treatment plan from decompression only to decompression with fusion or vice versa .

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Lumbar spinal stenosis from degenerative spondylolisthesis is commonly treated with decompression only or decompression with additional instrumented fusion. An objective diagnostic tool capable of establishing abnormal motion between lumbar vertebrae to guide decision-making between surgical procedures is needed. To this end, a metric based on the vertebral sagittal plane translation-per-degree-of-rotation calculated from flexion-extension radiographs was developed.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

First, spine surgeons documented their intended surgical plan. Subsequently, the participants' flexion-extension radiographs were taken. From these, the translation-per-degree-of-rotation was calculated and reported as a sagittal plane shear index (SPSI). The SPSI metric of the spinal level intended to be treated was used to decide if the intended surgical plan needed to be changed or not.

RESULTS

SPSI was determined for 75 participants. Of these, 51 (68%) had an intended surgical plan of decompression only and 24 (32%) had decompression with fusion. In 63% of participants, the SPSI was in support of their intended surgical plan. For 29% of participants, the surgeon changed the surgical plan after the SPSI metric became available to them. A suggested change in the surgical plan was overruled by 8% of participants. The final surgical plan was decompression only for 59 (79%) participants and decompression with fusion for 16 (21%) participants.

CONCLUSION

The 29% change in intended surgical plans suggested that SPSI was considered by spine surgeons as an adjunct metric in deciding whether to perform decompression only or to add instrumented fusion. This change exceeded the a priori defined 15% considered necessary to show the potential clinical utility of SPSI.

Fusion versus decompression alone for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis and spinal stenosis: a target trial emulation with index trial benchmarking

PURPOSE

The value of adding fusion to decompression surgery for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis and spinal canal stenosis remains debated. Therefore, the comparative effectiveness and selected healthcare resource utilization of patients undergoing decompression with or without fusion surgery at 3 years follow-up was assessed.

METHODS

Using observational data from the Lumbar Stenosis Outcome Study and a target trial emulation with index trial benchmarking approach, our study assessed the comparative effectiveness of the two main surgical interventions for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis-fusion and decompression alone in patients with lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis and spinal canal stenosis. The primary outcome-measure was change in health-related quality of life (EuroQol Health Related Quality of Life 5-Dimension 3-Level questionnaire [EQ-5D-3L]); secondary outcome measures were change in back/leg pain intensity (Numeric Rating Scale), change in satisfaction (Spinal Stenosis Measure satisfaction subscale), physical therapy and oral analgesic use (healthcare utilization).

RESULTS

153 patients underwent decompression alone and 62 had decompression plus fusion. After inverse probability weighting, 137 patients were included in the decompression alone group (mean age, 73.9 [7.5] years; 77 female [56%]) and 36 in the decompression plus fusion group (mean age, 70.1 [6.7] years; 18 female [50%]). Our findings were compatible with no standardized mean differences in EQ-5D-3L summary index change score at 3 years (EQ-5D-3L German: 0.07 [95% confidence interval (CI), - 0.25 to 0.39]; EQ-5D-3L French: 0.18 [95% CI, - 0.14 to 0.50]). No between-group differences in change in back/leg pain intensity or satisfaction were found. Decompression plus fusion was associated with greater physical therapy utilization at 3 years follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Decompression alone should be considered the primary option for patients with lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis and spinal stenosis.

Comparing opioid utilization and costs for surgical management of single-level spondylolisthesis: A national claims database analysis

Introduction

The rise in degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS) cases has led to a significant increase in fusion surgeries, which incur substantial hospitalization costs and often necessitate chronic opioid use for pain management. Recent evidence suggests that single-level low-grade DLS outcomes are comparable whether a fusion procedure or decompression alone is performed, sparking debate over the cost-effectiveness of these procedures, particularly with the advent of minimally invasive techniques reducing the morbidity of fusion. This study aims to compare chronic opioid utilization and associated costs between decompression alone and decompression with instrumented fusion for single-level degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.

Material and methods

Using data from the PearlDiver database, a retrospective database analysis was conducted. We analyzed records of Medicare and Medicaid patients undergoing lumbar fusion or decompression from 2010 to 2022. Patient cohorts were divided into decompression alone (DA) and decompression with instrumented fusion (DIF). Chronic opioid use, pain clinic visits, and total costs were compared between the two groups at 90 days, 1 year, and 2 years post-surgery.

Theory

Does DIF offer a more cost-effective approach to managing DLS in terms of chronic opioid use in single-level DLS patients.

Results

The study revealed comparable chronic opioid use and pain clinic visits between DA and DIF groups at 90 days and 1 year. However, total costs associated with opioid prescriptions as well as surgical aftercare were significantly higher in the DIF group at 90 days (p < 0.05), 1 year (p < 0.05), and 2 years (p < 0.05) post-surgery compared to the DA group.

Conclusions

This study highlights the higher costs associated with DIF up to 2 years post-surgery despite comparable symptom improvement when compared to DA and DIF at the 1-year interval. DA emerges as a more financially favorable option, challenging the notion of fusion's cost-offsetting benefits. While further investigation is needed to understand underlying cost drivers and optimize outcomes, our findings emphasize the necessity of integrating clinical and economic factors in the management of single-level DLS.

Decompression alone or fusion in single-level lumbar spinal stenosis with spondylolisthesis? A systematic review and meta analysis

PURPOSE

The objective of this systematic review and metaanalysis is to compare the efficacy and safety of decompression alone versus decompression plus fusion in single-level lumbar spinal stenosis with spondylolisthesis.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Ovid Medline databases was conducted to find randomized control trials (RCTs) or cohort studies that compared decompression alone and decompression plus fusion in single-level lumbar spinal stenosis with spondylolisthesis. Operation time; reoperation; postoperative complications; postoperative Oswestry disability index(ODI) scores and scores related to back and leg pain were collected from eligible studies for meta-analysis.

RESULTS

We included 3 randomized controlled trials and 9 cohort studies with 6182 patients. The decompression alone group showed less operative time(P < 0.001) and intraoperative blood loss(p = 0.000), and no significant difference in postoperative complications was observed in randomized controlled trials(p = 0.428) or cohort studies(p = 0.731). There was no significant difference between the other two groups in reoperation(P = 0.071), postoperative ODI scores and scores related to back and leg pain.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, we found that the decompression alone group performed better in terms of operation time and intraoperative blood loss, and there was no significant difference between the two surgical methods in rate of reoperation and postoperative complications, ODI, low back pain and leg pain. Therefore, we come to the conclusion that decompression alone is not inferior to decompression and fusion in patients with single-level lumbar spinal stenosis with spondylolisthesis.

Decompression alone or decompression with fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis: five-year clinical results from a randomized clinical trial

Aims

We compared decompression alone to decompression with fusion surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis, with or without degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS). The aim was to evaluate if five-year outcomes differed between the groups. The two-year results from the same trial revealed no differences.

Methods

The Swedish Spinal Stenosis Study was a multicentre randomized controlled trial with recruitment from September 2006 to February 2012. A total of 247 patients with one- or two-level central lumbar spinal stenosis, stratified by the presence of DS, were randomized to decompression alone or decompression with fusion. The five-year Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were the EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D), visual analogue scales for back and leg pain, and patient-reported satisfaction, decreased pain, and increased walking distance. The reoperation rate was recorded.

Results

Five-year follow-up was completed by 213 (95%) of the eligible patients (mean age 67 years; 155 female (67%)). After five years, ODI was similar irrespective of treatment, with a mean of 25 (SD 18) for decompression alone and 28 (SD 22) for decompression with fusion (p = 0.226). Mean EQ-5D was higher for decompression alone than for fusion (0.69 (SD 0.28) vs 0.59 (SD 0.34); p = 0.027). In the no-DS subset, fewer patients reported decreased leg pain after fusion (58%) than with decompression alone (80%) (relative risk (RR) 0.71 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 0.97). The frequency of subsequent spinal surgery was 24% for decompression with fusion and 22% for decompression alone (RR 1.1 (95% CI 0.69 to 1.8)).

Conclusion

Adding fusion to decompression in spinal stenosis surgery, with or without spondylolisthesis, does not improve the five-year ODI, which is consistent with our two-year report. Three secondary outcomes that did not differ at two years favoured decompression alone at five years. Our results support decompression alone as the preferred method for operating on spinal stenosis.

Pacific Spine and Pain Society (PSPS) Evidence Review of Surgical Treatments for Lumbar Degenerative Spinal Disease: A Narrative Review

INTRODUCTION

Interventional treatment options for the lumbar degenerative spine have undergone a significant amount of innovation over the last decade. As new technologies emerge, along with the surgical specialty expansion, there is no manuscript that utilizes a review of surgical treatments with evidence rankings from multiple specialties, namely, the interventional pain and spine communities. Through the Pacific Spine and Pain Society (PSPS), the purpose of this manuscript is to provide a balanced evidence review of available surgical treatments.

METHODS

The PSPS Research Committee created a working group that performed a comprehensive literature search on available surgical technologies for the treatment of the degenerative spine, utilizing the ranking assessment based on USPSTF (United States Preventative Services Taskforce) and NASS (North American Spine Society) criteria.

RESULTS

The surgical treatments were separated based on disease process, including treatments for degenerative disc disease, spondylolisthesis, and spinal stenosis.

CONCLUSIONS

There is emerging and significant evidence to support multiple approaches to treat the symptomatic lumbar degenerative spine. As new technologies become available, training, education, credentialing, and peer review are essential for optimizing patient safety and successful outcomes.

Laminectomy With Fusion is Associated With Greater Functional Improvement Compared With Laminectomy Alone for the Treatment of Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE

To compare outcomes and complications profile of laminectomy alone versus laminectomy and fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis is a common cause of back pain and functional impairment. DLS is associated with high monetary (up to $100 billion annually in the US) and nonmonetary societal and personal costs. While nonoperative management remains the first-line treatment for DLS, decompressive laminectomy with or without fusion is indicated for the treatment-resistant disease.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed and EMBASE for RCTs and cohort studies from inception through April 14, 2022. Data were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. The risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute risk of bias tool. We generated odds ratio and standard mean difference estimates for select parameters.

RESULTS

A total of 23 manuscripts were included (n=90,996 patients). Complication rates were higher in patients undergoing laminectomy and fusion compared with laminectomy alone (OR: 1.55, P <0.001). Rates of reoperation were similar between both groups (OR: 0.67, P =0.10). Laminectomy with fusion was associated with a longer duration of surgery (Standard Mean Difference: 2.60, P =0.04) and a longer hospital stay (2.16, P =0.01). Compared with laminectomy alone, the extent of functional improvement in pain and disability was superior in the laminectomy and fusion cohort. Laminectomy with fusion had a greater mean change in ODI (-0.38, P <0.01) compared with laminectomy alone. Laminectomy with fusion was associated with a greater mean change in NRS leg score (-0.11, P =0.04) and NRS back score (-0.45, P <0.01).

CONCLUSION

Compared with laminectomy alone, laminectomy with fusion is associated with greater postoperative improvement in pain and disability, albeit with a longer duration of surgery and hospital stay.

Comorbidity data collection across different spine registries: an evidence map

INTRODUCTION

Comorbidities are significant patient factors that contribute to outcomes after surgery. There is highly variable collection of this information across the literature. To help guide the systematic collection of best practice data, the Australian Spine Registry conducted an evidence map to investigate (i) what comorbidities are collected by spine registries, (ii) how they are collected and (iii) the compliance and completeness in collecting comorbidity data.

METHOD

A literature search was performed to identify published studies of adult spine registry data reporting comorbidities. In addition, targeted questionnaires were sent to existing global spine registries to identify the maximum number of relevant results to build the evidence map.

RESULTS

Thirty-six full-text studies met the inclusion criteria. There was substantial variation in the reporting of comorbidity data; 55% of studies reported comorbidity collection, but only 25% reported the data collection method and 20% reported use of a comorbidity index. The variation in the literature was confirmed with responses from 50% of the invited registries (7/14). Of seven, three use a recognised comorbidity index and the extent and methods of comorbidity collection varied by registry.

CONCLUSION

This evidence map identified variations in the methodology, data points and reporting of comorbidity collection in studies using spine registry data, with no consistent approach. A standardised set of comorbidities and data collection methods would encourage collaboration and data comparisons between patient cohorts and could facilitate improved patient outcomes following spine surgery by allowing data comparisons and predictive modelling of risk factors.

High preoperative expectations and postoperative fulfillment of expectations two years after decompression alone and decompression plus fusion for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Fulfillment of expectations is a patient-centered outcome that has not been assessed based on fusion status for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis (LDS).

PURPOSE

To compare preoperatively cited expectations and 2-year postoperative fulfillment of expectations between patients undergoing decompression alone (no-fusion) vs. decompression plus fusion (fusion) for LDS.

STUDY DESIGN

Longitudinal cohort.

PATIENT SAMPLE

357 patients.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Postoperative version of Lumbar Spine Surgery Expectations Survey, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), satisfaction with surgery.

METHODS

Preoperatively patients completed the 20-item Expectations Survey measuring amount of 'improvement expected' for symptoms, physical function, and psychosocial well-being (score range 0-100); two years postoperatively patients completed the follow-up Survey measuring 'improvement received'. The proportion of expectations fulfilled was calculated as 'improvement received' divided by 'improvement expected' (<1 some expectations fulfilled, >1 expectations surpassed). Patients also completed the ODI, SF-12 mental health subscale, satisfaction with surgery, and measures of comorbidity and psychosocial status, including social support (i.e. help at home) and prior orthopedic surgery (i.e. hip/knee arthroplasty).

RESULTS

Patients' mean age was 67 years, 61% were women, 82% had single-level LDS, 73% had fusion, and mean follow-up was 26.2 months. Compared to patients with no-fusion, patients with fusion had more pain, spinal instability, use of opioids, disability, and greater preoperative Expectations Survey scores (69 vs 74, p=.008). The proportion of expectations fulfilled postoperatively was high and similar for both groups (.82 vs. .79, p=.40), but more variable for fusion (IQR .32 vs. .40). In multivariable analysis with the proportion as the dependent variable, fulfilled expectations was associated with better mental well-being (coeff=1.1, 95% CI 0.6-1.7, p=.0001) and more social support (coeff=3.3, 95% CI 1.1-5.6, p=.004) and unfulfilled expectations was associated with prior arthroplasty (coeff=-8.6, 95% CI -15.4-(-1.9), p=.01) and subsequent lumbar surgery (coeff=-15.6, 95% CI -25.2-(-6.0), p=.002). Similar associations were found for change in ODI and satisfaction.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients had high preoperative expectations of surgery with greater expectations for decompression-fusion compared to decompression-alone. Although more variable for the fusion group, both groups had high proportions of expectations fulfilled. This study highlights the spectrum of clinical and psychosocial variables that impacts fulfillment of expectations for both decompression-alone and decompression-fusion for LDS surgery.

Decompression alone or decompression with fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis: a randomized clinical trial with two-year MRI follow-up

AIMS

The aims of this study were first, to determine if adding fusion to a decompression of the lumbar spine for spinal stenosis decreases the rate of radiological restenosis and/or proximal adjacent level stenosis two years after surgery, and second, to evaluate the change in vertebral slip two years after surgery with and without fusion.

METHODS

The Swedish Spinal Stenosis Study (SSSS) was conducted between 2006 and 2012 at five public and two private hospitals. Six centres participated in this two-year MRI follow-up. We randomized 222 patients with central lumbar spinal stenosis at one or two adjacent levels into two groups, decompression alone and decompression with fusion. The presence or absence of a preoperative spondylolisthesis was noted. A new stenosis on two-year MRI was used as the primary outcome, defined as a dural sac cross-sectional area ≤ 75 mm2 at the operated level (restenosis) and/or at the level above (proximal adjacent level stenosis).

RESULTS

A total of 211 patients underwent surgery at a mean age of 66 years (69% female): 103 were treated by decompression with fusion and 108 by decompression alone. A two-year MRI was available for 176 (90%) of the eligible patients. A new stenosis at the operated and/or adjacent level occurred more frequently after decompression and fusion than after decompression alone (47% vs 29%; p = 0.020). The difference remained in the subgroup with a preoperative spondylolisthesis, (48% vs 24%; p = 0.020), but did not reach significance for those without (45% vs 35%; p = 0.488). Proximal adjacent level stenosis was more common after fusion than after decompression alone (44% vs 17%; p < 0.001). Restenosis at the operated level was less frequent after fusion than decompression alone (4% vs 14%; p = 0.036). Vertebral slip increased by 1.1 mm after decompression alone, regardless of whether a preoperative spondylolisthesis was present or not.

CONCLUSION

Adding fusion to a decompression increased the rate of new stenosis on two-year MRI, even when a spondylolisthesis was present preoperatively. This supports decompression alone as the preferred method of surgery for spinal stenosis, whether or not a degenerative spondylolisthesis is present preoperatively.Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(12):1343-1351.

Utility of a fulcrum for positioning support during flexion-extension radiographs for assessment of lumbar instability in patients with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis

OBJECTIVE

The authors investigated a new standardized technique for evaluating lumbar stability in lumbar lateral flexion-extension (LFE) radiographs. For patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis, a three-part fulcrum with a support platform that included a semiarc leaning tool with armrests, a lifting platform for height adjustment, and a base for stability were used. Standard functional radiographs were used for comparison to determine whether adequate flexion-extension was acquired through use of the fulcrum method.

METHODS

A total of 67 consecutive patients diagnosed with L4-5 degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis were enrolled in the study. The authors analyzed LFE radiographs taken with the patient supported by a fulcrum (LFEF) and without a fulcrum. Sagittal translation (ST), segmental angulation (SA), posterior opening (PO), change in lumbar lordosis (CLL), and lumbar instability (LI) were measured for comparison using functional radiographs.

RESULTS

The average value of SA was 5.76° ± 3.72° in LFE and 9.96° ± 4.00° in LFEF radiographs, with a significant difference between them (p < 0.05). ST and PO were also significantly greater in LFEF than in LFE. The detection rate of instability was 10.4% in LFE and 31.3% in LFEF, and the difference was significant. The CLL was 27.31° ± 11.96° in LFE and 37.07° ± 12.963.16° in LFEF, with a significant difference between these values (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with traditional LFE radiographs, the LFEF radiographs significantly improved the detection rate of LI. In addition, this method may reduce patient discomfort during the process of obtaining radiographs.

Decompression alone or decompression and fusion in degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis

BACKGROUND

Clinically, there are substantive practice variations in surgical management of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. We aimed at evaluating whether decompression alone outcomes for patients with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis are comparable to those of decompression with fusion.

METHODS

In this meta-analysis, the Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Library databases were searched from inception to February 16th, 2022. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies comparing decompression alone with decompression and fusion for patients with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis were included in this study. There were no language limitations. Odds ratio (OR), mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were used to report results in the random-effects model. Main outcomes included Oswestry disability index (ODI), pain, clinical satisfaction, complication and reoperation rates. The study protocol was published in PROSPERO (CRD42022310645).

FINDINGS

Thirty-three studies (6 RCTs and 27 cohort studies) involving 94 953 participants were included. Differences in post-operative ODI between decompression alone and decompression with fusion were not significant. A small difference for back (MD, 0.13; [95% CI, 0.08 to 0.18]; I ²:0.00%) and leg pain (MD, 0.30; [95% CI, 0.09 to 0.51]; I ²:48.35%) was observed on the 3rd post-operative month. The results did not reveal significant differences in leg pain and back pain between decompression alone and fusion groups on the 6th, 12th, and 24th post-operative months. Difference in clinical satisfaction between decompression alone and decompression with fusion were not significant from RCTs (OR, 0.26; [95% CI, 0.03 to 1.92]; I ²:83.27%). Complications (OR, 1.54; [95% CI, 1.16 to 2.05]; I ²:48.88%), operation time (MD, 83.39; [95% CI, 55.93 to 110.85]; I ²:98.75%), intra-operative blood loss (MD, 264.58; [95% CI, 174.99 to 354.16]; I ²:95.61%) and length of hospital stay (MD, 2.85; [95% CI, 1.60 to 4.10]; I ²:99.49%) were higher with fusion.

INTERPRETATION

Clinical effectiveness of decompression alone was comparable to that of decompression with fusion for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. Decompression alone is recommended for patients with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.

FUNDING

This work was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 81871818), Tangdu Hospital Seed Talent Program (Fei-Long Wei), Natural Science Basic Research Plan in Shaanxi Province of China (No.2019JM-265) and Social Talent Fund of Tangdu Hospital (No.2021SHRC034).

Do preoperative clinical and radiographic characteristics impact patient outcomes following one-level minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion based upon presenting symptoms?

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Patients undergoing minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) frequently present with lower extremity neurologic symptoms with or without associated lower back pain. While symptomatic improvement of leg and back pain has been reported, the resolution of back pain when it is a predominant presenting symptom remains underreported following MI-TLIF.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to compare clinical outcomes at 1 year of patients undergoing MI-TLIF with lower extremity neurologic symptoms with and without a significant component of back pain.

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective review of prospectively collected data from a single surgeon surgical database from 2017 to 2019 was performed.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Fifty one patients undergoing MI-TLIF.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Self-reported measures included the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Visual analog scale back pain (VAS-back), and VAS leg pain (VAS-leg).

METHODS

Patients were divided into two groups: Leg Pain Predominant (patients reported greater than 50% leg pain upon presentation) and Back Pain Predominant (patients reported 50% or greater back pain). Multivariate analysis was performed to determine differences between groups based upon any significantly baseline characteristics.

RESULTS

Preoperative demographic and radiographic outcomes were similar between the two groups. Both groups demonstrated significant improvement in ODI, VAS-Back and VAS-leg at 1-year postoperatively. On multivariate analysis, there were differences in ODI at 1-year, 1-year back pain, and 1-year leg pain between groups with those who initially presented with leg pain having a lower ODI, VAS Back, and VAS leg. Patients who presented with predominantly leg pain were more likely to meet minimal clinically important difference (MCID) criteria for ODI and VAS-back compared to those with predominantly back pain.

CONCLUSION

Following MI-TLIF, patients with lower extremity neurologic symptoms with and without a significant component of back pain have improvements in back pain, leg pain, and ODI regardless of their primary presenting pain complaint; however, patients who presented with predominantly leg pain were more likely to meet MCID criteria for improvement in their back pain and ODI score.

Lumbar Spinal Stenosis with Degenerative Spondylolisthesis Treated with Decompression Alone. A Cohort of 346 Patients at a Large Spine Unit. Clinical Outcome, Complications and Subsequent Surgery

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study.

OBJECTIVE

To study the clinical outcome, complications and subsequent surgery rate of DA for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) with DS.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

There is still no consensus regarding the treatment approach for LSS with DS.

METHODS

We performed a retrospectively designed cohort study on prospectively collected data from a single high productive spine surgical center. Results from the Swedish Spine Registry and a local register for complications were used for the analyses. Patients with LSS and DS (>3 mm) who underwent DA during January 2012 to August 2017 were included. Patient reported outcome measures at baseline and 2 years after surgery were analyzed. Complications within 30 days of surgery and all subsequent surgery in the lumbar spine were registered.

RESULTS

We identified and included 346 patients with completed 2-year follow-up registration. At 2-year follow-up there was a significant improvement in all outcome measures. The global assessment success rate for back and leg pain was 68.3% and 67.6% respectively. Forty-one patients had at least 1 intra- or postoperative complication (11.9%). Nine patients (2.6%), underwent subsequent surgery within 2 years of the primary surgery whereof 2 underwent fusion. During the whole period of data collection, that is, as of June 2020, 28 patients had undergone subsequent surgery (8.1%) whereas 8 of them had had 2 surgeries. Fifteen patients underwent fusion.

CONCLUSION

DA provides good clinical outcome at 2-year follow-up in patients with LSS and DS with low rate of intra- and postoperative complications and subsequent surgery. Our data supports the evidence that DA is effective and safe for LSS with DS.Level of Evidence: 3.

Decompression Alone Compared to Decompression With Fusion in Patients With Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Meta-Regression

BACKGROUND

We aimed to synthesize the latest evidence on the efficacy and safety of decompression alone compared to decompression with fusion in patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis. We also aimed to evaluate factors affecting the efficacy and complications.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, Europe PMC, Cochrane Central Database, and ClinicalTrials.gov. The main outcome was improvement in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). The secondary outcome was back pain and leg pain improvement, complications, reoperation rate, duration of surgery, length of hospital stay, and blood loss.

RESULTS

There were 3993 patients from 13 studies. Decompression with fusion was associated with greater reduction in ODI (mean difference 4.04 [95% CI 0.95, 7.13], P = 0.01) compared to decompression alone. Greater reduction in back (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.27 [95% CI 0.00, 0.53], P = 0.05) and leg pain (SMD 0.13 [95% CI 0.06, 0.21], P < 0.001) was observed in the decompression with fusion group. Complications were similar in the 2 groups (OR 0.60 [95% CI 0.34, 1.04], P = 0.07). The reoperation rate was similar in both groups (P = 0.54). Decompression alone resulted in shorter duration of surgery (mean difference -85.18 minutes [95% CI -122.79, -47.57], P < 0.001), less blood loss (mean difference -262.65 mL [95% CI -313.45, -211.85], P < 0.001), and shorter hospital stay (mean difference -2.64 days [95% CI -3.58, -1.70], P < 0.001). Empirical Bayes random-effects meta-regression showed that the rate of complication was influenced by age (coefficient 0.172, P = 0.004).

CONCLUSION

Decompression with fusion had greater efficacy than decompression alone but was associated with more blood loss, lengthier surgery, and hospitalization. In terms of complications, decompression alone may be beneficial in younger patients. (PROSPERO CRD42020211904) LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2A.

Does the Predominant Pain Location Influence Functional Outcomes, Satisfaction, and Return to Work After Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion For Degenerative Spondylolisthesis?

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective review of prospectively collected data.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to determine how different combinations of preoperative back pain (BP) and leg pain (LP) may influence functional outcomes, patient satisfaction and return to work (RTW) in patients undergoing minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) for degenerative spondylolisthesis.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Surgical decision-making is often based on the traditional assumption that the predominance of lower extremity symptoms is a stronger indication for lumbar spine surgery. Surprisingly, there is a paucity of literature supporting this notion and the isolated impact of the preoperative pattern of pain on outcome remains unclear.

METHODS

Prospectively collected data for patients who underwent primary MIS-TLIF for degenerative spondylolisthesis were reviewed. Patients were categorized into 3 groups depending on predominant pain location: LP predominant (LP>BP), back pain predominant [(BPP); BP>LP] and equal pain predominance (BP=LP). Patients were prospectively followed for at least 2 years.

RESULTS

In total, 781 patients were included: 33.4% LP predominant, 28.7% BPP and 37.9% equal pain predominance cases. The BPP group was significantly younger (P=0.005) and showed a trend towards poorer baseline Short-Form-36 Mental Component Summary (P=0.069). After adjusting for baseline differences, there was no significant difference in BP, LP, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), SF-36 Physical Component Summary, and SF-36 Mental Component Summary between the 3 groups at all time points (P>0.05) except for poorer 1-month ODI in the BPP group (P=0.010). The rate of minimal clinically important difference attainment for ODI and SF-36 Physical Component Summary, satisfaction, expectation fulfilment and RTW were also similar (P>0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The functional outcomes, quality of life and satisfaction after MIS-TLIF were similar, regardless of the predominant pain location. Equal proportions of patients achieved the minimal clinically important difference and RTW. In the context of proper indications, these results suggest that MIS-TLIF can be equally effective for patients with varying combinations of BP or LP.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III-nonrandomized cohort study.

Decompression Using Minimally Invasive Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Associated with Degenerative Spondylolisthesis: A Review

Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS), which often occurs concurrently with degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS), is a common disease in the elderly population, affecting the quality of life of aged people significantly. Notwithstanding the frequently good effect of conservative therapy on LSS, a minority of the patients ultimately require surgery. Surgery for LSS aims to decompress the narrowed spinal canals with preservation of spinal stability. Traditional open surgery, either pure decompression or decompression with fusion, was considered effective for the treatment of LSS with or without DS. However, the long-term clinical outcomes of traditional open surgery are still unclear. Moreover, the disadvantages of conventional open surgery are extensive, examples including tissue injuries or secondary instability, with limited outcomes and significant reoperation rates. With the development and improvement of surgical tools, various minimally invasive spine surgery (MISS) methods, including indirect decompression techniques of interspinous process devices (IPDs) and direct decompression techniques such as microscopic spine surgery or endoscopic spine surgery (ESS), have been updated with enhancement. IPDs, such as Superion devices, were reported to behave with comparable physical function, disability, and symptoms outcomes to laminectomy decompression. As an emerging technique of MISS, ESS has beneficial hallmarks including minimal tissue injuries, reduced complication rates, and shortened recovery periods, thus gaining popularity in recent years. ESS can be classified in terms of endoscopic hallmarks and approaches. Predictably, with the continuous development and gradual maturity, MISS is expected to replace traditional open surgery widely in the surgical treatment of LSS associated with DS in the future.

Clinical outcome following decompression and short or long instrumented fusion in lumbar degenerative spinal stenosis. A prospective case-control analysis

OBJECTIVES

There is limited data on the direct clinical comparison between short and long fusion following surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. The hypothesis that regardless their baseline characteristics and morbidity, clinical outcome is similar in patients with lumbar stenosis treated with decompression plus posterior instrumented fusion in one or two versus three to five levels was tested.

METHODS

Subjects were divided into Group A and Group B corresponding to stenotic pathology and instrumented fusion in one or two levels and three to five levels, respectively. Primary outcome measures at one year were the change in SF-36 physical component (PCS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Secondary outcome measures included the EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D), the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), the mental component (MCS) of SF-36 scale and the Zung Self-Rating Depression Scale.

RESULTS

Seventy seven (77) patients were included (Group A, n = 42; Group B, n = 35). Patients in Group B were older, surgery lasted longer and intraoperative blood loss was greater than patients in Group A (p < 0.05). A significant clinical improvement was noted in both Groups on all scales (p < 0.01). Clinical outcome at one year was equally favorable in both Groups (p > 0.05). The evaluation of depression for Group A showed a significant improvement at one year (p = 0.02) compared to the preoperative status.

CONCLUSIONS

Older individuals are more likely to have multilevel stenosis and more co-morbidities and they were associated with longer instrumentation. However, complications are similar and clinical outcome is equally favorable compared to short instrumented fusion for fewer levels of disease.

Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis in Patients With Mild Leg Pain Levels Is Associated With Unsatisfactory Outcome

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective register cohort study.

OBJECTIVES

The indication for surgery in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is considered to be leg pain and neurogenic claudication (NC). Nevertheless, a significant part of patients operated for LSS have mild leg pain levels defined as leg pain ≤minimally important clinical difference (MICD). Information is lacking on how to inform these patients about the probable outcome of surgery. The objective was to report the outcome of surgery for LSS in patients with a mild preoperative level of leg pain.

METHODS

A total of 2559 patients operated upon for LSS with preoperative leg pain ≤3 NRS (Numerical Rating Scale) were evaluated for outcome at the 1-year follow-up. NRS for back pain, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and the EuroQol (EQ-5D) were used.

RESULTS

In the period 2007 to 2017, we identified 3239 patients (14%) who had mild leg pain (≤3 on the NRS). In this cohort, leg pain increased 0.40 (0.56-0.37) and back pain decreased 1.0 (0.95-1.2) at the 1-year follow up. ODI decreased 11.1 (10.2-11.4) and the EQ-5D increased 0.15 (0.17-0.14). A total of 31% reached successful outcome in terms of back pain, 43% in terms of ODI and 48% in terms of EQ-5D. 63% of the patients were satisfied with the outcome.

CONCLUSION

A minority of patients with mild leg pain levels operated upon for LSS attain MICD for back pain, ODI, and EQ-5D. The results from this study can aid the surgeon in the shared decision-making process before surgery.

Does the Predominant Pain Location Influence Functional Outcomes, Satisfaction and Return to Work After Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion for Cervical Radiculopathy?

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective review of prospectively-collected registry data.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to determine how different combinations of preoperative neck pain (NP) and arm pain (AP) influence functional outcomes, patient satisfaction, and return-to-work in patients undergoing anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for degenerative cervical radiculopathy (DCR).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Surgeons often base decisions on the traditional belief that the predominance of radicular upper extremity symptoms is a stronger indication for cervical spine surgery than axial pain. However, there is a paucity of literature supporting this notion.

METHODS

A prospectively maintained registry was reviewed for all patients who underwent primary ACDF for DCR. Patients were categorized into three groups depending on predominant pain location: AP predominant ([APP]; AP > NP), NP predominant ([NPP]; NP > AP), and equal pain predominance ([EPP]; NP = AP). Patients were prospectively followed for at least 2 years.

RESULTS

In total, 303 patients were included: 27.4% APP, 38.9% NPP, and 33.7% EPP cases. The APP group was significantly older (P = 0.030), although there were no other preoperative differences among the three groups. After adjusting for baseline differences, the SF-36 Physical Component Summary was significantly better in the APP group at 6 months (P = 0.048) and 2 years (P = 0.039). In addition, they showed a trend towards better 6-month Neck Disability Index (P = 0.077) and 2-year SF-36 Mental Component Summary (P = 0.059). However, an equal proportion of patients in each group achieved the Minimal Clinically Important Difference for each outcome, were satisfied, and returned to work 2 years after surgery.

CONCLUSION

Although patients with NPP had slightly poorer function and quality of life, all patients experienced a clinically meaningful improvement in patient-reported outcomes, regardless of the predominant pain location. High rates of satisfaction and return-to-work were also achieved. In the context of proper indications, these findings suggest that ACDF can be equally effective for DCR patients with varying combinations of NP or AP.Level of Evidence: 3.

The necessity or not of the addition of fusion to decompression for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis patients: A PRISMA compliant meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The new emerging application of decompression combined with fusion comes with a concern of cost performance, however, it is a lack of big data support. We aimed to evaluate the necessity or not of the addition of fusion for decompression in patients with lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis.

METHODS

Potential studies were selected from PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library, and gray relevant studies were manually searched. We set the searching time spanning from the creating date of electronic engines to August 2020. STATA version 11.0 was exerted to process the pooled data.

RESULTS

Six RCTs were included in this study. A total of 650 patients were divided into 275 in the decompression group and 375 in the fusion group. No statistic differences were found in the visual analog scales (VAS) score for low back pain (weighted mean difference [WMD], -0.045; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.259-1.169; P = .942) and leg pain (WMD, 0.075; 95% CI, -1.201-1.35; P = .908), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score (WMD, 1.489; 95% CI, -7.232-10.211; P = .738), European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) score (WMD, 0.03; 95% CI, -0.05-0.12; P = .43), Odom classification (OR, 0.353; 95% CI 0.113-1.099; P = .072), postoperative complications (OR, 0.437; 95% CI, 0.065-2.949; P = .395), secondary operation (OR, 2.541; 95% CI 0.897-7.198; P = .079), and postoperative degenerative spondylolisthesis (OR = 8.59, P = .27). Subgroup analysis of VAS score on low back pain (OR = 0.77, 95% CI, 0.36-1.65; P = .50) was demonstrated as no significant difference as well.

CONCLUSION

The overall efficacy of the decompression combined with fusion is not revealed to be superior to decompression alone. At the same time, more evidence-based performance is needed to supplement this opinion.

The patient acceptable symptom state for the Oswestry Disability Index following single-level lumbar fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

The patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) is a valuable tool for interpreting patient-reported outcomes. Previous studies have attempted to define the PASS in a heterogenous cohort with various lumbar spinal disorders and surgical procedures.

PURPOSE

We aimed to determine the PASS threshold for the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) specifically for patients undergoing lumbar fusion for spondylolisthesis-associated functional disability.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective review of prospectively collected registry data.

PATIENT SAMPLE

There were 692 patients who underwent primary single-level minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis between 2006 and 2014.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The ODI was collected pre-operatively, at 6 months and 2 years postoperatively. An anchor question was adapted from the NASS questionnaire, "How would you rate the overall results of your treatment?" while a validation question was taken from the same questionnaire, "Has the surgery for your back condition met your expectations so far?"

METHODS

Responses to the anchor question were used to determine whether a PASS was achieved. Receiver operating characteristics curve analysis was performed to assess the ability of the ODI to discriminate between an acceptable/unacceptable symptom state as well as to define PASS thresholds. Sensitivity analyses were performed for different follow-up periods (6 months, 2 years), subgroups (by age, gender, BMI, and comorbidity burden), baseline ODI tertiles, and an alternate definition of PASS.

RESULTS

In total, 529 of 692 (76%) patients completed 2-year follow-up, of which, 89% considered their symptom state to be acceptable. Areas under the curve (AUC) ranged from 0.81 to 0.90 for all receiver operating characteristics analyses, indicating that the ODI had an excellent discriminative ability. The PASS threshold was ≤18.09 at 6 months (AUC 0.81, sensitivity 77%, specificity 72%) and ≤15.27 at 2 years (AUC 0.86, sensitivity 79%, specificity 79%). These thresholds proved to be robust in the sensitivity analyses, showing minimal variation across different patient subgroups and baseline score tertiles.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with an ODI of ≤15.27 can be considered to have achieved a PASS after lumbar fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis. These findings will help surgeons to contextualize a patient's functional recovery after lumbar spine surgery and enable researchers to define clinically relevant benchmarks when designing trials utilizing the ODI.

Posterior fixation can further improve the segmental alignment of lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis with oblique lumbar interbody fusion

Background

For patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis, whether additional posterior fixation can further improve segmental alignment is unknown, compared with stand-alone cage insertion in oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) procedure. The aim of this study was to compare changes of the radiographical segmental alignment following stand-alone cage insertion and additional posterior fixation in the same procedure setting of OLIF for patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis.

Methods

A retrospective observational study. Selected consecutive patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis underwent OLIF procedure from July 2017 to August 2019. Five radiographic parameters of disc height (DH), DH-Anterior, DH-Posterior, slip ratio and segmental lordosis (SL) were measured on preoperative CT scans and intraoperative fluoroscopic images. Comparisons of those radiographic parameters prior to cage insertion, following cage insertion and following posterior fixation were performed.

Results

A total of thirty-three patients including six males and twenty-seven females, with an average age of 66.9 ± 8.7 years, were reviewed. Totally thirty-six slipped levels were assessed with thirty levels at L4/5, four at L3/4 and two at L2/3. Intraoperatively, with only anterior cage support, DH was increased from 8.2 ± 1.6 mm to 11.8 ± 1.7 mm (p < 0.001), DH-Anterior was increased from 9.6 ± 2.3 mm to 13.4 ± 2.1 mm (p < 0.001), DH-Posterior was increased from 6.1 ± 1.9 mm to 9.1 ± 2.1 mm (p < 0.001), the slip ratio was reduced from 11.1 ± 4.6% to 8.3 ± 4.4% (p = 0.020) with the slip reduction ratio 25.6 ± 32.3%, and SL was slightly changed from 8.7 ± 3.7° to 8.3 ± 3.0°(p = 1.000). Following posterior fixation, the DH was unchanged (from 11.8 ± 1.7 mm to 11.8 ± 2.3 mm, p = 1.000), DH-Anterior and DH-Posterior were slightly changed from 13.4 ± 2.1 mm and 9.1 ± 2.1 mm to 13.7 ± 2.3 mm and 8.4 ± 1.8 mm respectively (P = 0.861, P = 0.254), the slip ratio was reduced from 8.3 ± 4.4% to 2.1 ± 3.6% (p < 0.001) with the slip reduction ratio 57.9 ± 43.9%, and the SL was increased from 8.3 ± 3.0° to 10.7 ± 3.6° (p = 0.008).

Conclusions

Compared with stand-alone cage insertion, additional posterior fixation provides better segmental alignment improvement in terms of slip reduction and segmental lordosis in OLIF procedures in the treatment of lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis.

Back pain in surgically treated degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: what can we tell our patients?

OF BACKGROUND DATA

Surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS) has traditionally been indicated for patients with neurogenic claudication. Surgery improves patients' disability and lower extremity symptoms, but less is known about the impact on back pain.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate changes in back pain after surgery and identify factors associated with these changes in surgically-treated DLS.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective review of prospectively collected data.

METHODS

There were 486 consecutive patients with surgically-treated DLS who were enrolled in the Canadian Spine Outcomes Research Network prospective registry and identified for this study. Patients had demographic data, clinical information, disability (Oswestry Disability Index), and back pain rating scores collected prospectively at baseline, and 12 months follow-up RESULTS: Of the 486 DLS patients, 376 (77.3%) were successfully followed at 12 months. Mean age at baseline was 66.7 (standard deviation [SD] 9.2) years old, and 63% were female. Back pain improved significantly at 12 months, compared with baseline (p<.001). Improvement in Numeric Rating Scale (NRS)-back pain ratings was on average 2.97 (SD 2.5) points at one year and clinically significant improvement in back pain was observed in 75% of patients (minimal clinically important difference (MCID) NRS-Pain 1.2 points). Multivariable logistic regression revealed five factors associated with meeting MCID NRS-back pain at 12 month follow up: higher baseline back pain, better baseline physical function (higher SF-12 Physical Component Score), symptoms duration less than 1 to 2 years, and having no intraoperative adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Back pain improved significantly for patients treated surgically for DLS at 1-year follow-up.

Decompression with fusion versus decompression in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this study was to review relevant studies in order to determine the efficacy of decompression with fusion versus decompression in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis.

METHODS

Using appropriate keywords, we identified relevant studies using PubMed, the Cochrane library, and Embase. Key pertinent sources in the literature were also reviewed, and all articles published through October 2019 were considered for inclusion. For each study, we used odds ratios, mean difference (MD), and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) to assess and synthesize outcomes.

RESULTS

We found 13 studies that were consistent with this meta-analysis with a total of 29066 patients. Compared with decompression, decompression with fusion significantly increased the incidence of complications (RR: 1.41, 95%CI: 1.26-1.57), the length of hospital stay (WMD: 1.868, 95%CI: 1.394-2.343), operative time (WMD: 80.399, 95%CI: 44.397-116.401), estimated blood loss (WMD: 309.356, 95%CI: 98.008-520.704) and Zurich claudication questionnaire in symptom severity (WMD: 0.200, 95%CI: 0.006-0.394). The reoperation rate was lower in the decompression with fusion group than the decompression group but without significant difference (RR: 0.91, 95%CI: 0.82-1.00). There was no significant difference between 2 groups in visual analog scale (leg pain and back pain), ODI, Short Form 36 Health Survey physical component summary, Short Form 36 Health Survey mental component summary, and Zurich claudication questionnaire physical function.

CONCLUSION

Decompression with fusion has no significant clinical advantages in treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis when compared with decompression.

Comparative Effectiveness of Microdecompression Alone vs Decompression Plus Instrumented Fusion in Lumbar Degenerative Spondylolisthesis

IMPORTANCE

Conflicting evidence and large practice variation are present in the surgical treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis. More than 90% of surgical procedures in the United States include instrumented fusion compared with 50% or less in other countries.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether the effectiveness of microdecompression alone is noninferior to decompression with instrumented fusion in a real-world setting.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This multicenter comparative effectiveness study with a noninferiority design assessed prospective data from the Norwegian Registry for Spine Surgery. From September 19, 2007, to December 21, 2015, 1376 patients at 35 Norwegian orthopedic and neurosurgical departments underwent surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis without scoliosis. After excluding patients undergoing laminectomy alone, fusion without instrumentation, or surgery in more than 2 levels and those with a former operation at the index level, 794 patients were included in the analyses, regardless of missing or incomplete follow-up data, before propensity score matching. Data were analyzed from March 20 to October 30, 2018.

EXPOSURES

Microdecompression alone or decompression with instrumented fusion.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

A reduction from baseline of 30% or greater in the Oswestry Disability Index at 12-month follow-up.

RESULTS

After propensity score matching, 570 patients (413 female [72%]; mean [SD] age, 64.7 [9.5] years) were included for comparison, with 285 undergoing microdecompression (mean [SD] age, 64.6 [9.8] years; 205 female [72%]) and 285 undergoing decompression with instrumented fusion (mean [SD] age, 64.8 [9.2] years; 208 female [73%]). The proportion of each type of procedure varied between departments. However, changes in outcome scores varied within patients but not between departments. The proportion of patients with improvement in the Oswestry Disability Index of at least 30% was 150 of 219 (68%) in the microdecompression group and 155 of 215 (72%) in the instrumentation group. The 95% CI (-12% to 5%) for the difference of -4% was above the predefined margin of noninferiority (-15%). Microdecompression alone was associated with shorter operation time (mean [SD], 89 [44] vs 180 [65] minutes; P < .001) and shorter hospital stay (mean [SD], 2.5 [2.4] vs 6.4 [3.0] days; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis, the clinical effectiveness of microdecompression alone was noninferior to that of decompression with instrumented fusion. Microdecompression alone was also associated with shorter durations of surgery and hospital stay, supporting the suggestion that the less invasive procedure should be considered for most patients.

Machine learning-based preoperative predictive analytics for lumbar spinal stenosis

OBJECTIVEPatient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) following decompression surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) demonstrate considerable heterogeneity. Individualized prediction tools can provide valuable insights for shared decision-making. The authors aim to evaluate the feasibility of predicting short- and long-term PROMs, reoperations, and perioperative parameters by machine learning (ML) methods.METHODSData were derived from a prospective registry. All patients had undergone single- or multilevel mini-open facet-sparing decompression for LSS. The prediction models were trained using various ML-based algorithms to predict the endpoints of interest. Models were selected by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). The endpoints were dichotomized by minimum clinically important difference (MCID) and included 6-week and 12-month numeric rating scales for back pain (NRS-BP) and leg pain (NRS-LP) severity and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), as well as prolonged surgery (> 45 minutes), extended length of hospital stay (> 28 hours), and reoperations.RESULTSA total of 635 patients were included. The average age was 62 ± 10 years, and 333 patients (52%) were male. At 6 weeks, MCID was seen in 63%, 76%, and 61% of patients for ODI, NRS-LP, and NRS-BP, respectively. At internal validation, the models predicted MCID in these variables with accuracies of 69%, 76%, and 85%, and with AUCs of 0.75, 0.79, and 0.92. At 12 months, 66%, 63%, and 51% of patients reported MCID; the observed accuracies were 62%, 74%, and 66%, with AUCs of 0.68, 0.72, and 0.79. Reoperations occurred in 60 patients (9.5%), of which 27 (4.3%) occurred at the index level. Overall and index-level reoperations were predicted with 69% and 63% accuracy, respectively, and with AUCs of 0.66 and 0.61. In 15%, a length of surgery greater than 45 minutes was observed and predicted with 78% accuracy and AUC of 0.54. Only 15% of patients were admitted to the hospital for longer than 28 hours. The developed ML-based model enabled prediction of extended hospital stay with an accuracy of 77% and AUC of 0.58.CONCLUSIONSPreoperative prediction of a range of clinically relevant endpoints in decompression surgery for LSS using ML is feasible, and may enable enhanced informed patient consent and personalized shared decision-making. Access to individualized preoperative predictive analytics for outcome and treatment risks may represent a further step in the evolution of surgical care for patients with LSS.

Percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis in the elderly

OBJECTIVES

Percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic decompression (PTED) under local anesthesia is rarely performed for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS) because of the limited field of vision, inherent instability, etc. The objective of this study was to describe the procedure of the PTED technique and to demonstrate the early clinical outcomes.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From January 2017 to January 2019, 40 consecutive patients aged 60 and older were diagnosed with LSS with DLS in our institution and underwent PTED. All patient were followed up to 1 year postoperatively. The clinical outcomes were evaluated using the visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and modified MacNab criteria.

RESULTS

The mean age was 70.2 ± 7.1 years. Follow-up ranged from 12 to 24 months. The mean ± SD values of the preoperative VAS leg pain and ODI scores were 7.5 ± 1.1 and 67.3 ± 9.3, respectively. The scores improved to 2.2 ± 1.1 and 20.7 ± 8.1 at 12 months postoperatively. The outcomes of the modified MacNab criteria showed that 87.5 % of patients obtained a good-to-excellent rate. The percent slippage of spondylolisthesis before surgery (10.8 ± 2.6 %) and at the end of follow-up (11.0 ± 2.4 %) was not significantly different. One patient had a dural tear and intracranial hypertension, and one patient had tibialis anterior weakness.

CONCLUSION

PTED under local anesthesia could be an effective treatment method for LSS with DLS in elderly patients. However, potential complications still require further evaluation.

Are degenerative spondylolisthesis and further slippage postoperatively really issues in spinal stenosis surgery?

Background and aims Opinions diverge concerning the prognostic importance of preoperative degenerative spondylolisthesis in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis, as well as the significance of further slippage post-operatively following decompression alone. However, a slip is only one among several factors related to the topic, e.g. duration and intensity of back and leg pain, pre-operative walking ability, number of levels operated and not least the experience of the surgeon. Our aim was to take all of the above-mentioned factors into consideration when analysing the patients' clinical outcome, reported as Change in back pain, Change in leg pain, Overall satisfaction and Change in walking ability, with special emphasis on the possible importance of pre- and/or post-operative degenerative spondylolisthesis. Methods We studied 200 consecutive patients, mean follow-up time 81 months (range 62-108). Before treatment and on the follow-up occasion all patients answered the SF-36 questionnaire and assessed their back and leg pain on a visual analogue scale (VAS). At follow-up the patients were asked about possible changes in back and leg pain (completely free, much better, somewhat better, unchanged, somewhat worse, much worse) and whether they were; satisfied with the outcome, in doubt or not satisfied. Before treatment and at follow-up the presence or not of degenerative spondylolisthesis was determined in the lateral view on a plain X-ray or MRI. By use of a microsurgical technique decompression was achieved in all patients by bilateral laminotomy not sparing the midline ligaments, irrespective of a degenerative spondylolisthesis or not. Eight surgeons with different surgical experience performed the operations. Four separate multivariate analyses were conducted, one for each clinical outcome. The Lasso method was used for variable selection and multiple imputation was applied to handle missing values. Results At follow-up 78.5% of the patients were completely satisfied with the outcome. Minimal clinical important difference (MCID) was achieved for 69% of the patients. Before surgery 28 patients were able to walk more than 1 km compared to 111 at follow-up. The reoperation rate at 6.8 years was 12% further decompressions and 2.5% fusions at the index level. Post-operative slippage was equally common in patients with and without a preoperative slip (around 30%). There were no notable differences in outcome in patients with and without a preoperative slip and no effect of further slippage at the index or another level post-operatively. Nor could the statistical analysis show any of the other covariates (age, gender, duration and intensity of back and leg pain, pre-operative walking ability or number of levels operated) to be of statistically significant importance for predicting the outcome. In the univariate statistical analysis differences were found between the patients of individual surgeons regarding satisfaction, pain improvement, and reoperation rates in favour of surgical experience, which were, however, not statistically significant in the multivariate analysis. Conclusions None of the covariates, including pre-operative spondylolisthesis and further slippage post-operatively, were statistically significant for predicting the clinical outcome. Implication Our results provide no evidence for adding fusion to the decompression.

Fusion Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: WFNS Spine Committee Recommendations

Lumbar spine stenosis represents a complex degenerative pathology that has been a subject of significant dispute when it comes to fusion. A review of the literature from 2008 to 2019 was performed on the role of fusion in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis using PubMed, Ovid Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Using the key words "lumbar spinal stenosis," "lumbar fusion," "lumbar decompression," and "lumbar pedicle screw fixation," the search revealed 490 papers. Of these, only Level 1 or Level 2 evidence papers were selected, leading to only 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that were analyzed. None of the good-quality studies (RCTs) performed so far have proven any clinical benefit of adding fusion to degenerative lumbar spine decompression. The effect of spinal instability on the outcome following decompression remains controversial. At present, no unanimous criteria exist among the RCTs to identify what constitutes true instability. Fusion for instability or stenosis alone remains controversial, and the results are unconvincing. At this point, the issue expands to not only lumbar degenerative diseases but spinal fractures and lumbar isthmic spondylolisthesis. We thereby present the consensus of the World Federation of Neurosurgical Societies Spine Committee, which formulated the indications for lumbar spine fusion in degenerative lumbar stenosis.

Improvements in Back and Leg Pain After Minimally Invasive Lumbar Decompression

BACKGROUND

Few studies have quantified clinical improvement following minimally invasive lumbar decompression based on predominant back pain or leg pain.

PURPOSE

To quantify improvement in patient-reported outcomes following minimally invasive lumbar decompression and determine the degree of improvement in back pain, leg pain, and disability in patients who present with predominant back pain or predominant leg pain.

METHODS

Patients who underwent primary, one-level minimally invasive lumbar decompression for degenerative pathology were retrospectively reviewed. Comparisons of visual analog scale (VAS) back and leg pain scores, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores, and Short Form-12 (SF-12) mental and physical component scores from pre-operative to 6-week, 12-week, 6-month, and 1-year follow-up. Subgroup analyses were performed for patients with predominant back pain or predominant leg pain.

RESULTS

A total of 102 patients were identified. Scores on VAS back and leg pain, ODI, and SF-12 physical component improved from pre-operative to all post-operative time points. After 1 year, patients reported a 2.8-point (47%) reduction in back pain and a 4-point (61.1%) reduction in leg pain scores; 52 patients with predominant back pain and 50 patients with predominant leg pain reported reductions in pain throughout the year following surgery. In both the back and leg pain cohorts, patients experienced reductions in ODI during the first 6 months and throughout 1-year follow-up, respectively. The majority of patients achieved minimum clinically important difference, regardless of predominant symptom.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients reported improvements in back and leg pain following minimally invasive lumbar decompression regardless of predominant presenting symptom; however, patients with predominant leg pain may experience greater improvement than those with predominant back pain.

Patients with predominantly back pain at the time of lumbar fusion for low-grade spondylolisthesis experience similar clinical improvement to patients with predominantly leg pain: mid-term results

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Patients with back pain predominance (BPP) have traditionally been thought to derive less predictable symptomatic relief from lumbar fusion surgery.

PURPOSE

To compare postoperative clinical outcomes as well as degree of improvement in clinical outcome measures between patients with BPP and patients with leg pain predominance (LPP) undergoing open posterior lumbar fusion.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Analysis of patients who underwent an open posterior lumbar fusion for low-grade (Meyerding Grade I or II) degenerative or isthmic spondylolisthesis from 2011 to 2018 was conducted. Surgery was indicated after failure of conservative treatment to address radiculopathy and/or neurogenic claudication. Patients were excluded if they were under 18 years of age at the time of surgery, had less than 6 months of follow-up, presented with a lumbar vertebral body fracture, tumor, or infection, or underwent a fusion surgery that extended to the thoracic spine, high-grade spondylolisthesis, or concomitant deformity.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Radiographs obtained at preoperative, immediate postoperative, and final visits were evaluated for presence or absence of fusion. Patient-reported outcomes were recorded at preoperative and final clinic visits that included: visual analog scale (VAS) back/leg pain, and Oswestry disability index (ODI). Achievement of minimal clinically important difference (MCID) was analyzed, along with rates of postoperative complication and reoperation.

METHODS

Preoperative and final patient-reported outcomes were obtained. Achievement of MCID was evaluated using following thresholds: ODI 14.9, VAS-back pain 2.1, VAS-leg pain 2.8. For analysis, patients were divided into two groups based on predominant location of pain: predominantly VAS-back pain (BPP) and predominantly VAS-leg pain (LPP).

RESULTS

One hundred forty-one patients met inclusion criteria. Of these, 71 had LPP, and 70 had BPP. Patients with preoperative LPP experienced greater improvements in VAS-leg (p<.001) compared to those with BPP, whereas patients with preoperative BPP experienced greater improvements in VAS-back (p=.011) postoperatively compared to those with LPP. There were no differences in the final clinical outcomes. Additionally, LPP achieved MCID for VAS-leg (p=.027) at significantly higher proportion than BPP and BPP achieved MCID for VAS-back (p=.050) at significantly higher proportion than LPP.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with low-grade spondylolisthesis who underwent an open posterior lumbar fusion had improvement in symptoms regardless of presentation with BPP or LPP. In properly indicated patients, posterior spinal fusion is effective for those with BPP in the setting of experiencing both leg and back pain, and clinicians can use this information for perioperative discussions and surgical decision-making.

Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial with clinical, neurophysiological, laboratory and radiological outcome for surgical versus non-surgical treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis: the Uppsala Spinal Stenosis Trial (UppSten)

INTRODUCTION

Symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis is the most common indication for spinal surgery. However, more than one-third of the patients undergoing surgery for lumbar stenosis report dissatisfaction with the results. On the other hand, conservative treatment has shown positive results in some cases. This trial will compare the outcomes of surgical versus non-surgical treatment for lumbar stenosis. The study includes a multidimensional follow-up, aiming to study the association between outcome and other studied parameters, mainly electromyography and nerve conduction. Moreover, it may contribute to a better understanding of the pathophysiology of lumbar stenosis and to the development of future pharmacological treatments.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

UppSten is a single-centre randomised controlled trial in which 150 patients with symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis will be randomised into one of two treatment arms. The patients in the surgical arm will undergo laminectomy; the patients in the non-surgical arm will be given a structured physical training programme. The primary outcome of the study will be the Oswestry Disability Index. Secondary outcomes will include motor amplitude and degree of denervation activity obtained by means of nerve conduction studies and electromyography. Patient-reported outcome measures will be also used as secondary outcomes. Blood sample analysis and the investigation of potential inflammation markers are the additional secondary outcome parameters. Laboratory evaluation will include blood sample collection before the treatment initiation and after 6 months. Flavum ligament biopsies will be performed in the surgical group. Finally, tertiary outcomes will include neurophysiological measures, the objective walking ability and radiological evaluation.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study is approved by the Local Ethics Committee (Dnr 2017-506), the Hospital's Clinical Trials Committee (2018-0001) and the National Biobank Council and Uppsala Biobank (BbA-827-2018-025). The results will be presented in peer-reviewed journals and at international conferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03495661.

Comparison of Nitinol and Titanium Nails Effectiveness for Lumbosacral Spine Fixation in Surgical Treatment of Degenerative Spine Diseases

Relevance. Surgical decompression and decompression with stabilization are highly effective for treatment of spinal canal stenosis at the level of lumbar spine. However, complications developing after application of rigid fixation systems resulted in active introduction of dynamic implants into clinical practice.

Purpose of the study — to compare effectiveness of nitinol and titanium nails for lumbosacral fixation in surgical treatment of degenerative spine diseases.

Materials and methods. 220 patients who underwent surgeries in 4 hospitals were randomized into two groups, each consisting of 110 patients (1:1 ratio): a group of patients who underwent stabilization of the vertebral motor segments with rods of nitinol with the required volume of decompression at the operation level and a group of patients who underwent stabilization of the vertebral motor segments with standard rods of titanium with the required volume of decompression at the intervention level. Patients suffered clinically significant spinal canal stenosis in one or two adjacent segments: from L3 to S1. Outcomes were evaluated during three years postoperatively by VAS scale for spine and lower limbs, and by ODI and SF-36 scales.

Results. All scales demonstrated better values in both groups of patients, namely, significant decrease of pain syndrome and improvement in mental and physical health. X-ray examination of all patients during the study period demonstrated restoration of lumbar lordosis. Group of patients with dynamic nails featured less complications rate related to metal implants including adjacent segment disease.

Conclusion. Transpedicular fixation of lumbosacral spine by nitinol nails is an effective technique allowing to preserve motion along with stable fixation.

Selective versus multi-segmental decompression and fusion for multi-segment lumbar spinal stenosis with single-segment degenerative spondylolisthesis

Background

Lumbar spinal stenosis, often accompanied by degenerative spondylolisthesis, is one of the most common conditions in the elderly. Decompression and fusion is a well-accepted treatment for single-segment lumbar spinal stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis; however, the treatment for multi-segment lumbar spinal stenosis with single-segment degenerative spondylolisthesis (MLSS) remains controversial. The objective of this study is to compare the effectiveness of selective decompression and fusion to multi-segmental decompression and fusion for MLSS.

Methods

A total of 42 patients suffering from MLSS who underwent surgery between June 2012 and January 2015 were included in this analysis. Of the 42 patients with minimum 3-year follow-up, 22 underwent selective decompression and fusion, and 20 patients underwent multi-segmental decompression and fusion. Age, gender, symptom duration, operative time, blood loss, the number of decompressed segment and fused segment, and complication were compared between the two groups. The visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Short Form 36 (SF-36) were used to assess efficacy.

Results

Operative time, blood loss, and the number of fused segment in multi-segmental decompression and fusion group were greater than those in selective decompression and fusion group (P < 0.01). The VAS, ODI, and SF-36 scores at 1-year follow-up and 3-year follow-up were significantly improved compared with those preoperatively in both groups (P < 0.01) but were not significantly different between the two groups at each time point (P > 0.05). There was no iatrogenic spinal instability in the decompressed segments in selective decompression and fusion group, while three patients developed postoperative instability at the adjacent segments above the fused segments in multi-segmental decompression and fusion group at 3-year follow-up.

Conclusions

Selective decompression and fusion is a safe and effective method for the treatment of MLSS, with the advantages of shorter operative time, less blood loss, and more preservation of spinal motion segments when compared with multi-segmental decompression and fusion.

Motion Analysis in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis With Degenerative Spondylolisthesis: A Feasibility Study of the 3DCT Technique Comparing Laminectomy Versus Bilateral Laminotomy

STUDY DESIGN

This was a randomized radiologic biomechanical pilot study in vivo.

OBJECTIVE

The objectives of this study was to evaluate if 3-dimensional computed tomography is a feasible tool in motion analyses of the lumbar spine and to study if preservation of segmental midline structures offers less postoperative instability compared with central decompression in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

The role of segmental instability after decompression is controversial. Validated techniques for biomechanical evaluation of segmental motion in human live subjects are lacking.

METHODS

In total, 23 patients (mean age, 68 y) with typical symptoms and magnetic resonance imaging findings of spinal stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis (>3 mm) in 1 or 2 adjacent lumbar levels from L3 to L5 were included. They were randomized to either laminectomy (LE) or bilateral laminotomy (LT) (preservation of the midline structures). Documentation of segmental motion was made preoperatively and 6 months postoperatively with CT in provoked flexion and extension. Analyses of movements were performed with validated software. The accuracy for this method is 0.6 mm in translation and 1 degree in rotation. Patient-reported outcome measures were collected from the Swespine register preoperatively and 2-year postoperatively.

RESULTS

The mean preoperative values for 3D rotation and translation were 6.2 degrees and 1.8 mm. The mean increase in 3D rotation 6 months after surgery was 0.25 degrees after LT and 0.7 degrees after LE (P=0.79) while the mean increase in 3D translation was 0.15 mm after LT and 1.1 mm after LE (P=0.42). Both surgeries demonstrated significant improvement in patient-reported outcome measures 2 years postoperatively.

CONCLUSIONS

The 3D computed tomography technique proved to be a feasible tool in the evaluation of segmental motion in this group of older patients. There was negligible increase in segmental motion after decompressive surgery. LE with removal of the midline structures did not create a greater instability compared with when these structures were preserved.

Utility of Supine Lateral Radiographs for Assessment of Lumbar Segmental Instability in Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective chart review OBJECTIVE.: To determine whether supine lateral radiographs increase the amount of segmental instability visualized in single-level lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis, when compared to traditional lateral flexion-extension radiographs. We hypothesized that supine radiographs increase the amount of segmental instability seen in single-level lumbar spondylolisthesis when compared to flexion-extension.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Accurate evaluation of segmental instability is critical to the management of lumbar spondylolisthesis. Standing flexion-extension lateral radiographs are routinely obtained, as it is believed to precipitate the forward-backward motion of the segment; however, recent studies with magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography have shown that the relaxed supine position can facilitate the reduction of the anterolisthesed segment. Here, we show that inclusion of supine lateral radiographs increases the amount of segmental instability seen in single-level lumbar spondylolisthesis when compared to traditional lateral radiographs.

METHODS

Supine lateral radiographs were added to the routine evaluation (standing neutral/flexion/extension lateral radiographs) of symptomatic degenerative spondylolisthesis at our institution. In this retrospective study, 59 patients were included. The amount of listhesis was measured and compared on each radiograph: standing neutral lateral ("neutral"), standing flexion lateral ("flexion"), standing extension lateral ("extension"), and supine lateral ("supine").

RESULTS

A total of 59 patients (51 women, 8 men), with a mean age of 63.0 years (±9.85 yr) were included. The mean mobility seen with flexion-extension was 5.53 ± 4.11. The mean mobility seen with flexion-supine was 7.83% ± 4.67%. This difference was significant in paired t test (P = 0.00133), and independent of age and body mass index. Maximal mobility was seen between flexion and supine radiographs in 37 patients, between neutral and supine radiographs in 11 cases, and between traditional flexion-extension studies in 11 cases.

CONCLUSION

Supine radiograph demonstrates more reduction in anterolisthesis than the extension radiograph. Incorporation of a supine lateral radiograph in place of extension radiograph can improve our understanding of segmental mobility when evaluating degenerative spondylolisthesis.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

Comparison of Decompression Alone Versus Decompression with Fusion for Stenotic Lumbar Spine: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

The first line of treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis (with or without lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis) involves conservative options such as anti-inflammatory drugs and analgesics. Approximately, 10%-15% of patients require surgery. Surgical treatment aims to decompress the spinal canal and dural sac from degenerative bony and ligamentous overgrowth. Different studies have given conflicting results. The aim of our study is to clear the confusion by comparing two surgical techniques. This meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. A literature search was conducted of the Ovid Embase, Scopus, Pubmed, Ovid Medline, Google Scholar, and Cochrane library databases. A quality and risk of bias assessment was also done. The analysis was done using Revman software (The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014, Copenhagen, Denmark). A total of 76 studies were extracted from the literature search and 29 studies with relevant information were shortlisted. Nine studies were included in the meta-analysis after a quality assessment and eligibility. Fusion with decompression surgery was found to be a better technique when compared to decompression alone for spinal stenosis in terms of the Oswestry Disability index and the visual analog pain scale for back and leg pain. On the basis of the meta-analysis of the recent medical literature, the authors concluded that decompression with fusion is a 3.5-times better surgical technique than decompression alone for spinal stenosis.

Minimally invasive spinal decompression for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis and stenosis maintains stability and may avoid the need for fusion

Aims

The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical and radiographic outcomes of microendoscopic laminotomy in patients with lumbar stenosis and concurrent degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS), and to determine the effect of this procedure on spinal stability.

Patients and Methods

A total of 304 consecutive patients with single-level lumbar DS with concomitant stenosis underwent microendoscopic laminotomy without fusion between January 2004 and December 2010. Patients were divided into two groups, those with and without advanced DS based on the degree of spondylolisthesis and dynamic instability. A total of 242 patients met the inclusion criteria. There were 101 men and 141 women. Their mean age was 68.1 years (46 to 85). Outcome was assessed using the Japanese Orthopaedic Association and Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire scores, a visual analogue score for pain and the Short Form Health-36 score. The radiographic outcome was assessed by measuring the slip and the disc height. The clinical and radiographic parameters were evaluated at a mean follow-up of 4.6 years (3 to 7.5).

Results

There were no significant differences in the preoperative measurements between the group and no significant differences between the clinical parameters at the final follow-up. The mean percentage slip was 17.1% preoperatively and 17.7% at the final follow-up (p = 0.35). Progressive instability was noted in 13 patients (8.2%) with DS and 6 patients (7.0%) with advanced DS, respectively (p = 0.81). There was radiological evidence of restabilization of the spine in 30 patients (35%) with preoperative instability. The success rate of microendoscopic laminotomy was good/excellent in 166 (69%), fair in 49 (20%) and poor in 27 patients (11%) in both groups.

Conclusion

Microendoscopic laminotomy is an effective form of surgical treatment for patients with DS and stenosis. Preservation of the stabilizing structures using this technique prevents postoperative instability. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:499-506.

Prospective, randomized, multicenter study with 2-year follow-up to compare the performance of decompression with and without interlaminar stabilization

OBJECTIVE

Surgical decompression is extremely effective in relieving pain and symptoms due to lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). Decompression with interlaminar stabilization (D+ILS) is as effective as decompression with posterolateral fusion for stenosis, as shown in a major US FDA pivotal trial. This study reports a multicenter, randomized controlled trial in which D+ILS was compared with decompression alone (DA) for treatment of moderate to severe LSS.

METHODS

Under approved institutional ethics review, 230 patients (1:1 ratio) randomized to either DA or D+ILS (coflex, Paradigm Spine) were treated at 7 sites in Germany. Patients had moderate to severe LSS at 1 or 2 adjacent segments from L-3 to L-5. Outcomes were evaluated up to 2 years postoperatively, including Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores, the presence of secondary surgery or lumbar injections, neurological status, and the presence of device- or procedure-related severe adverse events. The composite clinical success (CCS) was defined as combining all 4 of these outcomes, a success definition validated in a US FDA pivotal trial. Additional secondary end points included visual analog scale (VAS) scores, Zürich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ) scores, narcotic usage, walking tolerance, and radiographs.

RESULTS

The overall follow-up rate was 91% at 2 years. There were no significant differences in patient-reported outcomes at 24 months (p > 0.05). The CCS was superior for the D+ILS arm (p = 0.017). The risk of secondary intervention was 1.75 times higher among patients in the DA group than among those in the D+ILS group (p = 0.055). The DA arm had 228% more lumbar injections (4.5% for D+ILS vs 14.8% for DA; p = 0.0065) than the D+ILS one. Patients who underwent DA had a numerically higher rate of narcotic use at every time point postsurgically (16.7% for D+ILS vs 23% for DA at 24 months). Walking Distance Test results were statistically significantly different from baseline; the D+ILS group had > 2 times the improvement of the DA. The patients who underwent D+ILS had > 5 times the improvement from baseline compared with only 2 times the improvement from baseline for the DA group. Foraminal height and disc height were largely maintained in patients who underwent D+ILS, whereas patients treated with DA showed a significant decrease at 24 months postoperatively (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed no significant difference in the individual patient-reported outcomes (e.g., ODI, VAS, ZCQ) between the treatments when viewed in isolation. The CCS (survivorship, ODI success, absence of neurological deterioration or device- or procedure-related severe adverse events) is statistically superior for ILS. Microsurgical D+ILS increases walking distance, decreases compensatory pain management, and maintains radiographic foraminal height, extending the durability and sustainability of a decompression procedure.

Clinical trial registration no.: NCT01316211 (clinicaltrials.gov)

ISSLS PRIZE IN BIOENGINEERING SCIENCE 2018: dynamic imaging of degenerative spondylolisthesis reveals mid-range dynamic lumbar instability not evident on static clinical radiographs

PURPOSE

Degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) in the setting of symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis is commonly treated with spinal fusion in addition to decompression with laminectomy. However, recent studies have shown similar clinical outcomes after decompression alone, suggesting that a subset of DS patients may not require spinal fusion. Identification of dynamic instability could prove useful for predicting which patients are at higher risk of post-laminectomy destabilization necessitating fusion. The goal of this study was to determine if static clinical radiographs adequately characterize dynamic instability in patients with lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) and to compare the rotational and translational kinematics in vivo during continuous dynamic flexion activity in DS versus asymptomatic age-matched controls.

METHODS

Seven patients with symptomatic single level lumbar DS (6 M, 1 F; 66 ± 5.0 years) and seven age-matched asymptomatic controls (5 M, 2 F age 63.9 ± 6.4 years) underwent biplane radiographic imaging during continuous torso flexion. A volumetric model-based tracking system was used to track each vertebra in the radiographic images using subject-specific 3D bone models from high-resolution computed tomography (CT). In vivo continuous dynamic sagittal rotation (flexion/extension) and AP translation (slip) were calculated and compared to clinical measures of intervertebral flexion/extension and AP translation obtained from standard lateral flexion/extension radiographs.

RESULTS

Static clinical radiographs underestimate the degree of AP translation seen on dynamic in vivo imaging (1.0 vs 3.1 mm; p = 0.03). DS patients demonstrated three primary motion patterns compared to a single kinematic pattern in asymptomatic controls when analyzing continuous dynamic in vivo imaging. 3/7 (42%) of patients with DS demonstrated aberrant mid-range motion.

CONCLUSION

Continuous in vivo dynamic imaging in DS reveals a spectrum of aberrant motion with significantly greater kinematic heterogeneity than previously realized that is not readily seen on current clinical imaging.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level V data These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Decompression with or without concomitant fusion in lumbar stenosis due to degenerative spondylolisthesis: a systematic review

PURPOSE

The primary objective of this systematic review is to compare the outcome after decompression with and without concomitant instrumented fusion in patients with lumbar stenosis and degenerative spondylolisthesis. Does adding fusion to simple decompression lead to better results?

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, Cochrane, Web of Science, CINAHL and Academic Search Premier were searched. All studies comparing outcome of decompression alone to decompression with concomitant-instrumented fusion in patients suffering from symptomatic lumbar stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis were included. Risk of bias was assessed using an adapted version of the Cowley checklist.

RESULTS

Eleven studies were included in the analysis involving 3119 patients in total. In the majority of studies, including two RCTs, clinical outcome of both patient groups was comparable regarding most clinical outcome measures.

CONCLUSION

Currently there is not enough evidence that adding instrumented fusion to a decompression leads to superior outcomes compared to decompression only in patients with lumbar stenosis and degenerative spondylolisthesis. The most important clinical outcome measures, including the ODI, show comparable results. Therefore, the least invasive and least costly procedure, being decompression alone, is preferred in patients with low-grade spondylolisthesis with predominant leg pain. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

A Comparative Study of Decompressive Laminectomy and Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Grade I Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis

BACKGROUND

For Grade I degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS), both decompression alone and decompression with fusion are effective surgical treatments. Which of the two techniques is superior is still under debate. The purpose of this study was to compare clinical outcomes after decompression alone versus decompression with fusion for Grade I DLS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

139 patients who underwent surgery for Grade I DLS at L4-L5 were prospectively enrolled. Decompression alone was used to treat 74 patients, and decompression with fusion was used to treat 65 patients. Six patients in the first group and four patients in the second group were lost during the 2-year followup. Demographic data were recorded. Operation time, perioperative blood loss, total blood transfusion volume, and length of hospital stay were compared between the two groups. Back pain and functional outcomes were evaluated using the visual analog scale (VAS) and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), respectively.

RESULTS

Baseline demographic data were not different between the two groups. Operation time, blood loss, total blood transfusion volume, and length of hospital stay were all significantly greater in the fusion group than in the decompression group. This would be expected because fusion is the more invasive procedure. VAS scores were not different up until 6 months postoperatively. Twelve months after surgery, however, VAS scores were significantly lower in the fusion group. The same results were shown in terms of ODI. Although ODI decreased in both groups over time, the fusion group showed better functional outcomes than did the decompression group.

CONCLUSIONS

Although both decompression alone and decompression with fusion improved functional outcomes for Grade I DLS, fusion surgery resulted in better results compared to decompression alone. Therefore, fusion should be considered as the treatment of choice for Grade I DLS.

Decompression Alone Versus Decompression and Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Spondylolisthesis: A Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness and safety of decompression alone (D group) with decompression and fusion (DF group) for patients who were diagnosed with lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis (LDS).

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched for relevant studies that compared decompression alone with decompression and fusion for LDS. Then, data extraction and quality assessment were conducted, and the extracted data were analyzed by using RevMan 5.3. We used the random effects model for studies that had heterogeneity between them, and for those without heterogeneity, the fixed model was used.

RESULTS

Four randomized controlled trials and 14 nonrandomized controlled studies involving 77,994 patients were included for this meta-analysis. Although the DF group was associated with a higher postoperative change score on a visual analog scale compared with the D group in terms of back (P = 0.02) and leg (P = 0.04), they failed to reach the minimum clinically important difference. Moreover, no significant differences were found in Oswestry Disability Index, European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions, Short-Form 36 physical and mental component summaries score, and patients' satisfaction (P > 0.05) between treatment groups. Complication rate and reoperation rate (P > 0.05) were similar in both groups. Data analysis also showed that the DF group was associated with longer operation time (P < 0.00001), more intraoperative blood loss (P < 0.00001), and longer length of hospital stay (P < 0.00001).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with LDS, decompression and fusion surgery did not yield better clinical outcomes than decompression alone surgery. Also, the complication rate and reoperation rate were comparable between treatment groups. However, patients who had undergone decompression alone had shorter operation time, less intraoperative blood loss, and shorter hospital stay.

Effectiveness of a Decision-Making Protocol for the Surgical Treatment of Lumbar Stenosis with Grade 1 Degenerative Spondylolisthesis

BACKGROUND

Addition of fusion to decompression for stenosis with grade 1 degenerative spondylolisthesis is a controversial topic, and the question remains if fusion provides any benefit to the patient that warrants the increased health care utilization and perioperative morbidity. There is no consensus on indications for use of fusion over decompression alone.

METHODS

Patients received fusion or decompression according to a decision-making protocol based on their pattern of complaints, location of the compression, and facet angles and effusion as proven predictors of postoperative instability. Propensity score matching of patients was done for baseline data.

RESULTS

The study comprised 102 patients in 2 equally sized groups. No intergroup differences in numeric rating scale and Oswestry Disability Index were detected at any follow-up point (all P > 0.05). Duration of surgery, length of stay, estimated blood loss, and radiation doses were higher in the fusion group (all P < 0.001). Cumulative reoperation rate was similar with 6% for fusion and 8% for decompression (P > 0.05), as was the complication rate (8% vs. 6%, P > 0.05). Postoperative iatrogenic progression of spondylolisthesis requiring fusion surgery was seen in only 2% in the decompression group.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of a decision-making protocol led to a low rate of iatrogenically increased spondylolisthesis after decompression, while retaining outcomes. These data suggest that a decision-making protocol based on clinical history, location of nerve root compression, and proven radiologic predictors of postoperative instability assigns patients to fusion or decompression in a safe and effective manner.

Impact of Gender Disparities on Short-Term and Long-Term Patient Reported Outcomes and Satisfaction Measures After Elective Lumbar Spine Surgery: A Single Institutional Study of 384 Patients

BACKGROUND

There is a paucity of data determining the impact that gender disparities have on spine outcomes, particularly perception of health and satisfaction. The aim of this study was to determine whether there is a difference in 3-month and 1-year patient-reported outcomes and satisfaction after elective lumbar spine surgery.

METHODS

This was a retrospectively analyzed study from a maintained prospective database of 384 patients who underwent elective lumbar spine surgery. Patients were categorized by gender (men, n = 199; women, n = 185). Patient-reported outcome instruments (Oswestry disability index, visual analogue scale-back pain/leg pain, EuroQol visual analogue scale, and EuroQol 5 dimensions questionnaire) were completed before surgery, then at 3 and 12 months after surgery along with patient satisfaction measures.

RESULTS

Baseline patient demographics, comorbidities, and operative variables were similar between both cohorts. The female cohort had a slightly longer hospital stay than male cohort (P = 0.007). Baseline patient-reported outcome measures were different between both cohorts, with female patients having more Oswestry disability index (23.8 vs. 20.4; P ≤ 0.0001) and visual analogue scale-back pain (7.2 vs. 6.2; P = 0.0004), and a lower EuroQol 5 dimensions questionnaire (0.34 vs. 0.49; P = 0.0001) compared with the male cohort. At 1-year follow-up, the male cohort had a significantly more mean change in visual analogue scale-leg pain (-3.9 vs. -2.8; P = 0.04) and trended to have more mean change in visual analogue scale-back pain (-3.4 vs. -2.5; P = 0.06) and EuroQol visual analogue scale (8.6 vs. 3.4; P = 0.054) scores compared with the female cohort. At 1-year a significantly more portion in the male cohort found that surgery met their expectations compared with the female cohort (65.0% vs. 49.5%; P = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that there may be differences in perception of health, pain, and disability between men and women at baseline, short-term and long-term follow-up that may influence overall patient satisfaction.

Minimum Clinically Important Difference: Current Trends in the Spine Literature

STUDY DESIGN

Review of the 2011 to 2015 minimum clinically important difference (MCID)-related publications in Spine, Spine Journal, Journal of Neurosurgery-Spine, and European Spine Journal.

OBJECTIVE

To summarize the various determinations of MCID and to analyze its usage in the spine literature of the past 5 years in order to develop a basic reference to help practitioners interpret or utilize MCID.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

MCID represents the smallest change in a domain of interest that is considered beneficial to a patient or clinician. The many sources of variation in calculated MCID values and inconsistency in its utilization have resulted in confusion in the interpretation and use of MCID.

METHODS

All articles from 2011 to 2015 were reviewed. Only clinical science articles utilizing patient reported outcome scores (PROs) were included in the analysis. A keyword search was then performed to identify articles that used MCID. MCID utilization in the selected papers was characterized and recorded.

RESULTS

MCID was referenced in 264/1591 (16.6%) clinical science articles that utilized PROs: 22/264 (8.3%) independently calculated MCID values and 156/264 (59.1%) used previously published MCID values as a gauge of their own results. Despite similar calculation methods, there was a two- or three-fold range in the recommended MCID values for the same instrument. Half the studies recommended MCID values within the measurement error. Most studies (97.2%) using MCID to evaluate their own results relied on generic MCID. The few studies using specific MCID (MCID calculated for narrowly defined indications or treatments) did not consistently match the characteristics of their sample to the specificity of the MCID. About 48% of the studies compared group averages instead of individual scores to the MCID threshold.

CONCLUSION

Despite a clear interest in MCID as a measure of patient improvement, its current developments and uses have been inconsistent.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

N/A.