Guideline summary review: An evidence-based clinical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis

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.

One- and 2-year outcomes of lumbar facet arthroplasty versus spinal fusion in young (<65 years) and old (≥65 years) patients for the treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis and stenosis

Background

Facet arthroplasty, an alternative to lumbar fusion, offers stabilization and preserves range of motion. This subanalysis of the TOPS IDE trial (FDA #G160168) compared facet arthroplasty, using the TOPS device, with a standard single-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) in patients stratified by age (<65 and ≥65 years) with symptomatic grade 1 degenerative spondylolisthesis with moderate to severe spinal stenosis at L2-5.

Methods

Patient-reported outcomes (PROMS), including Oswestry disability index (ODI), visual analog pain scales (VAS), and Zurich claudication questionnaires (ZCQ), were assessed at baseline and multiple postoperative timepoints. Radiographic evaluation of flexion/extension range of motion (ROM) occurred at baseline, 12 months, and 24 months. Data were analyzed following an intention-to-treat model. Significance was defined as p<.05.

Results

About 299 patients were included (TOPS=206, TLIF=93). The groups were similar at baseline. At 2 years, the TOPS group had a greater proportion of patients report ≥15-point improvement for ODI (93.8% versus 77.1%, p=.011) and ≥20-point improvement for VAS back (84.4% versus 61.8%, p=.014). At 1 year, TOPS group had a greater proportion of patients report clinically significant improvements in all ZCQ categories (91.6% versus 78.5%, p=.012). In patients <65 years, the TOPS group had improved PROMS compared to TLIF at 2 years; however, these differences were less pronounced in patients ≥65 years old. The TOPS groups preserved more ROM at 12 (2.8° 95%CI [1.87; 3.74], p<.0001) and 24 (2.99° 95%CI [1.82; 4.15], p<.0001) months compared to TLIF. ROM was similarly preserved in patients aged <65 and ≥65. The rate of adverse events did not differ significantly between treatment groups.

Conclusions

Facet arthroplasty preserves more ROM in all ages and leads to improved PROMS compared to TLIF, particularly in younger patients.

The Research on Spinopelvic Parameters and Clinical Outcomes of Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in the Treatment of Complex Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the improvement of spinopelvic parameters and therapeutic efficacy in the treatment of complex degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (CDLS) after oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF).

METHODS

From January 2018 to December 2020, 71 patients with CDLS underwent OLIF or TLIF at the same hospital: 31 in the OLIF group and 40 in the TLIF group. The spinopelvic parameters, perioperative data, and clinical outcomes were elected and compared between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

There were no statistic differences in demographic perioperative complication rates and preoperative spinopelvic parameters between the two groups. OLIF group showed lower serum C-reactive protein in the early postoperative stage, shorter length of stay, less estimated blood loss and larger slippage correction rate (88.05 vs. 62.37%) (all P ＜ 0.05). There was no significant difference in the visual analog scale and Oswestry disability index scores before operation and three and six months after surgery, but OLIF group was better in the long-term with visual analog scale and Oswestry disability index (1.7/13.2 vs. 2.3/16.5). And it was significantly different in the lumbar lordosis angle, segmental lordosis angle, pelvic tilt, sacral slope (46.0°/9.3°/18.2°/35.9° vs. 40.4°/7.2°/23.9°/31.1°), and sagittal vertical axis (21.6 vs. 31.7mm) after surgery between OLIF and TLIF groups (all P ＜ 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

In the therapy of CDLS, OLIF can better reduce pelvic tilt, L1 axis S1 distance, and sagittal vertical axis, and increase lumbar lordosis angle and sacral slope, showing advantages over TLIF in improving and maintaining spinopelvic parameters. Although there was no difference in complication rates between OLIF and TLIF, OLIF was more minimally invasive, had less tissue damage, had faster recovery, and had better long-term outcomes.

The relationship between paraspinal muscle atrophy and degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis at the L4/5 level

BACKGROUND/CONTEXT

Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS) is a prevalent spinal condition that can result in significant disability. DLS is thought to result from a combination of disc and facet joint degeneration, as well as various biological, biomechanical, and behavioral factors. One hypothesis is the progressive degeneration of segmental stabilizers, notably the paraspinal muscles, contributes to a vicious cycle of increasing slippage.

PURPOSE

To examine the correlation between paraspinal muscle status on MRI and severity of slippage in patients with symptomatic DLS.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

Retrospective cross-sectional study at an academic tertiary care center.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Patients who underwent surgery for DLS at the L4/5 level between 2016-2018 were included. Those with multilevel DLS or insufficient imaging were excluded.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The percentage of relative slippage (RS) at the L4/5 level evaluated on standing lateral radiographs. Muscle morphology measurements including functional cross-sectional area (fCSA), body height normalized functional cross-sectional area (HI) of Psoas, erector spinae (ES) and multifidus muscle (MF) and fatty infiltration (FI) of ES and MF were measured on axial MR. Disc degeneration and facet joint arthritis were classified according to Pfirrmann and Weishaupt, respectively.

METHODS

Descriptive and comparative statistics, univariable and multivariable linear regression models were utilized to examine the associations between RS and muscle parameters, adjusting for confounders sex, age, BMI, segmental degeneration, and back pain severity and symptom duration.

RESULTS

The study analyzed 138 out of 183 patients screened for eligibility. The median age of all patients was 69.5 years (IQR 62 to 73), average BMI was 29.1 (SD±5.1) and average preoperative ODI was 46.4 (SD±16.3). Patients with Meyerding-Grade 2 (M2, N=25) exhibited higher Pfirrmann scores, lower MFfCSA and MFHI, and lower BMI, but significantly more fatty infiltration in the MF and ES muscles compared to those with Meyerding Grade 1 (M1). Univariable linear regression showed that each cm2 decrease in MFfCSA was associated with a 0.9%-point increase in RS (95% CI -1.4 to - 0.4, p<.001), and each cm2/m2 decrease in MFHI was associated with an increase in slippage by 2.2%-points (95% CI -3.7 to -0.7, p=.004). Each 1%-point rise in ESFI and MFFI corresponded to 0.17%- (95% CI 0.05-0.3, p=.01) and 0.20%-point (95% CI 0.1-0.3 p<.001) increases in relative slippage, respectively. Notably, after adjusting for confounders, each cm2 increase in PsoasfCSA and cm2/m2 in PsoasHI was associated with an increase in relative slippage by 0.3% (95% CI 0.1-0.6, p=.004) and 1.1%-points (95% CI 0.4-1.7, p=.001). While MFfCSA tended to be negatively associated with slippage, this did not reach statistical significance (p=.105). However, each 1%-point increase in MFFI and ESFI corresponded to increases of 0.15% points (95% CI 0.05-0.24, p=.002) and 0.14% points (95% CI 0.01-0.27, p=.03) in relative slippage, respectively.

CONCLUSION

This study found a significant association between paraspinal muscle status and severity of slippage in DLS. Whereas higher degeneration of the ES and MF correlate with a higher degree of slippage, the opposite was found for the psoas. These findings suggest that progressive muscular imbalance between posterior and anterior paraspinal muscles could contribute to the progression of slippage in DLS.

Quantifying Lumbar Foraminal Volumetric Dimensions: Normative Data and Implications for Stenosis-Part 2 of a Comprehensive Series

INTRODUCTION

Lumbar foraminal stenosis (LFS) occurs primarily due to degenerative changes in older adults, affecting the spinal foramina and leading to nerve compression. Characterized by pain, numbness, and muscle weakness, LFS arises from structural changes in discs, joints, and ligaments, further complicated by factors like inflammation and spondylolisthesis. Diagnosis combines patient history, physical examination, and imaging, while management ranges from conservative treatment to surgical intervention, underscoring the need for a tailored approach.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This multicenter study, conducted over six years at a tertiary hospital, analyzed the volumetric dimensions of lumbar foramina and their correlation with nerve structures in 500 patients without lumbar pathology. Utilizing high-resolution MRI with a standardized imaging protocol, eight experienced researchers independently reviewed the images for accurate measurements. The study emphasized quality control through the calibration of measurement tools, double data entry, validation checks, and comprehensive training for researchers. To ensure reliability, interobserver and intraobserver agreements were analyzed, with statistical significance determined by kappa statistics and the Student's t-test. Efforts to minimize bias included blinding observers to patient information and employing broad inclusion criteria to mitigate referral and selection biases. The methodology and findings aim to enhance the understanding of normal lumbar foramina anatomy and its implications for diagnosing and treating lumbar conditions.

RESULTS

The study's volumetric analysis of lumbar foramina in 500 patients showed a progressive increase in foraminal volume from the L1/L2 to the L5/S1 levels, with significant enlargement at L5/S1 indicating anatomical and biomechanical complexity in the lumbar spine. Lateral asymmetry suggested further exploration. High interobserver and intraobserver agreement levels (ICC values of 0.91 and 0.95, respectively) demonstrated the reliability and reproducibility of measurements. The patient cohort comprised 58% males and 42% females, highlighting a balanced gender distribution. These findings underscore the importance of understanding foraminal volume variations for lumbar spinal health and pathology.

CONCLUSION

Our study significantly advances spinal research by quantifying lumbar foraminal volumes, revealing a clear increase from the L1/L2 to the L5/S1 levels, indicative of the spine's adaptation to biomechanical stresses. This provides clinicians with a precise tool to differentiate between pathological narrowing and normal variations, enhancing the detection and treatment of lumbar foraminal stenosis. Despite limitations like its cross-sectional design, the strong agreement in measurements underscores the method's reliability, encouraging future research to further explore these findings' clinical implications.

Two-Stage Deep Learning Model for Diagnosis of Lumbar Spondylolisthesis Based on Lateral X-Ray Images

BACKGROUND

Diagnosing early lumbar spondylolisthesis is challenging for many doctors because of the lack of obvious symptoms. Using deep learning (DL) models to improve the accuracy of X-ray diagnoses can effectively reduce missed and misdiagnoses in clinical practice. This study aimed to use a two-stage deep learning model, the Res-SE-Net model with the YOLOv8 algorithm, to facilitate efficient and reliable diagnosis of early lumbar spondylolisthesis based on lateral X-ray image identification.

METHODS

A total of 2424 lumbar lateral radiographs of patients treated in the Beijing Tongren Hospital between January 2021 and September 2023 were obtained. The data were labeled and mutually identified by 3 orthopedic surgeons after reshuffling in a random order and divided into a training set, validation set, and test set in a ratio of 7:2:1. We trained 2 models for automatic detection of spondylolisthesis. YOLOv8 model was used to detect the position of lumbar spondylolisthesis, and the Res-SE-Net classification method was designed to classify the clipped area and determine whether it was lumbar spondylolisthesis. The model performance was evaluated using a test set and an external dataset from Beijing Haidian Hospital. Finally, we compared model validation results with professional clinicians' evaluation.

RESULTS

The model achieved promising results, with a high diagnostic accuracy of 92.3%, precision of 93.5%, and recall of 93.1% for spondylolisthesis detection on the test set, the area under the curve (AUC) value was 0.934.

CONCLUSIONS

Our two-stage deep learning model provides doctors with a reference basis for the better diagnosis and treatment of early lumbar spondylolisthesis.

Reference Data for Diagnosis of Spondylolisthesis and Disc Space Narrowing Based on NHANES-II X-rays

Robust reference data, representing a large and diverse population, are needed to objectively classify measurements of spondylolisthesis and disc space narrowing as normal or abnormal. The reference data should be open access to drive standardization across technology developers. The large collection of radiographs from the 2nd National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey was used to establish reference data. A pipeline of neural networks and coded logic was used to place landmarks on the corners of all vertebrae, and these landmarks were used to calculate multiple disc space metrics. Descriptive statistics for nine SPO and disc metrics were tabulated and used to identify normal discs, and data for only the normal discs were used to arrive at reference data. A spondylolisthesis index was developed that accounts for important variables. These reference data facilitate simplified and standardized reporting of multiple intervertebral disc metrics.

ChatGPT versus NASS clinical guidelines for degenerative spondylolisthesis: a comparative analysis

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Clinical guidelines, developed in concordance with the literature, are often used to guide surgeons' clinical decision making. Recent advancements of large language models and artificial intelligence (AI) in the medical field come with exciting potential. OpenAI's generative AI model, known as ChatGPT, can quickly synthesize information and generate responses grounded in medical literature, which may prove to be a useful tool in clinical decision-making for spine care. The current literature has yet to investigate the ability of ChatGPT to assist clinical decision making with regard to degenerative spondylolisthesis.

PURPOSE

The study aimed to compare ChatGPT's concordance with the recommendations set forth by The North American Spine Society (NASS) Clinical Guideline for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Degenerative Spondylolisthesis and assess ChatGPT's accuracy within the context of the most recent literature.

METHODS

ChatGPT-3.5 and 4.0 was prompted with questions from the NASS Clinical Guideline for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Degenerative Spondylolisthesis and graded its recommendations as "concordant" or "nonconcordant" relative to those put forth by NASS. A response was considered "concordant" when ChatGPT generated a recommendation that accurately reproduced all major points made in the NASS recommendation. Any responses with a grading of "nonconcordant" were further stratified into two subcategories: "Insufficient" or "Over-conclusive," to provide further insight into grading rationale. Responses between GPT-3.5 and 4.0 were compared using Chi-squared tests.

RESULTS

ChatGPT-3.5 answered 13 of NASS's 28 total clinical questions in concordance with NASS's guidelines (46.4%). Categorical breakdown is as follows: Definitions and Natural History (1/1, 100%), Diagnosis and Imaging (1/4, 25%), Outcome Measures for Medical Intervention and Surgical Treatment (0/1, 0%), Medical and Interventional Treatment (4/6, 66.7%), Surgical Treatment (7/14, 50%), and Value of Spine Care (0/2, 0%). When NASS indicated there was sufficient evidence to offer a clear recommendation, ChatGPT-3.5 generated a concordant response 66.7% of the time (6/9). However, ChatGPT-3.5's concordance dropped to 36.8% when asked clinical questions that NASS did not provide a clear recommendation on (7/19). A further breakdown of ChatGPT-3.5's nonconcordance with the guidelines revealed that a vast majority of its inaccurate recommendations were due to them being "over-conclusive" (12/15, 80%), rather than "insufficient" (3/15, 20%). ChatGPT-4.0 answered 19 (67.9%) of the 28 total questions in concordance with NASS guidelines (P = 0.177). When NASS indicated there was sufficient evidence to offer a clear recommendation, ChatGPT-4.0 generated a concordant response 66.7% of the time (6/9). ChatGPT-4.0's concordance held up at 68.4% when asked clinical questions that NASS did not provide a clear recommendation on (13/19, P = 0.104).

CONCLUSIONS

This study sheds light on the duality of LLM applications within clinical settings: one of accuracy and utility in some contexts versus inaccuracy and risk in others. ChatGPT was concordant for most clinical questions NASS offered recommendations for. However, for questions NASS did not offer best practices, ChatGPT generated answers that were either too general or inconsistent with the literature, and even fabricated data/citations. Thus, clinicians should exercise extreme caution when attempting to consult ChatGPT for clinical recommendations, taking care to ensure its reliability within the context of recent literature.

Severe Preoperative Disability Is Associated With Greater Mental Health Improvements Following Surgery for Degenerative Spondylolisthesis: A Cohort Matched Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate preoperative disability's influence on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) following surgery for degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS).

METHODS

DS patients who underwent surgical intervention were retrospectively identified from a single-surgeon spine registry. Cohorts based on Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) < 41 (milder disability) and ≥ 41 (severe disability) were created. Demographic differences were accounted for with 1:1 propensity score matching. For the matched sample, perioperative and PRO data were additionally collected. PROs assessed included mental health, physical function, pain, and disability. Pre- and up to 2-year postoperative PROs were utilized. Average time to final follow-up was 15.7 ± 8.8 months. Improvements in PROs and minimal clinically important difference (MCID) rates were calculated. Continuous variables were compared through Student t-test and categorical variables were compared through chi-square tests.

RESULTS

Altogether, 214 patients were included with 77 in the milder disability group. The severe disability group had worse postoperative day (POD) 1 pain scores and longer hospital stays (p ≤ 0.038, both). The severe disability group reported worse outcomes pre- and postoperatively (p < 0.011, all), but had greater average improvement in 12-item Short Form health survey mental composite score (SF-12 MCS), 9-Item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), visual analogue scale (VAS)-back, and ODI by 6 weeks (p ≤ 0.037, all) and PHQ-9, VAS-back and ODI by final follow-up (p ≤ 0.015, all). The severe disability cohort was more likely to achieve MCID for SF-12 MCS, PHQ-9, and ODI (p ≤ 0.003, all).

CONCLUSION

Patients with greater baseline disability report higher POD 1 pain and discharge later than patients with milder disability. While these patients report inferior physical/mental health before and after surgery, they report greater improvements in mental health and disability postoperatively.

Percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic decompression with removal of the posterosuperior region underneath the slipping vertebral body for lumbar spinal stenosis with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic decompression (PTED) is an ideal minimally invasive decompression technique for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS). The posterosuperior region underneath the slipping vertebral body (PRSVB) formed by DLS is an important factor exacerbating LSS in patients. Therefore, the necessity of removing the PRSVB during ventral decompression remains to be discussed. This study aimed to describe the procedure of PTED combined with the removal of the PRSVB and to evaluate the clinical outcomes.

METHODS

LSS with DLS was diagnosed in 44 consecutive patients at our institution from January 2019 to July 2021, and they underwent PTED combined with the removal of the PRSVB. All patients were followed up for at least 12 months. The clinical outcomes were evaluated using the visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and modified MacNab criteria.

RESULTS

The mean age of the patients was 69.5 ± 7.1 years. The mean preoperative ODI score, VAS score of the low back, and VAS score of the leg were 68.3 ± 10.8, 5.8 ± 1.0, and 7.7 ± 1.1, respectively, which improved to 18.8 ± 5.0, 1.4 ± 0.8, and 1.6 ± 0.7, respectively, at 12 months postoperatively. The proportion of patients presenting "good" and "excellent" ratings according to the modified MacNab criteria was 93.2%. The percent slippage in spondylolisthesis preoperatively (16.0% ± 3.3%) and at the end of follow-up (15.8% ± 3.3%) did not differ significantly (p>0.05). One patient had a dural tear, and one patient had postoperative dysesthesia.

CONCLUSIONS

Increasing the removal of PRSVB during the PTED process may be a beneficial surgical procedure for alleviating clinical symptoms in patients with LSS and DLS. However, long-term follow-up is needed to study clinical effects.

Decision-making Algorithm for the Surgical Treatment of Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis of L4/L5

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data.

OBJECTIVE

To report the decision-making process for decompression alone (DA) and decompression and fusion (DF) at a tertiary orthopedic center and compare the operative outcomes between both groups.

BACKGROUND

Controversy exists around the optimal operative treatment for DLS, either with DF or DA. Although previous studies tried to establish specific indications, clinical decision-making algorithms are needed.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients undergoing spinal surgery for DLS at L4/5 were retrospectively analyzed. A survey of spine surgeons was performed to identify factors influencing surgical decision-making, and their association with the surgical procedure was tested in the clinical data set. We then developed a clinical score based on the statistical analysis and survey results. The predictive capability of the score was tested in the clinical data set with a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. To evaluate the clinical outcome, two years follow-up postoperative Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), postoperative low back pain (LBP) (Numeric Analog Scale), and patient satisfaction were compared between the DF and DA groups.

RESULTS

A total of 124 patients were included in the analysis; 66 received DF (53.2%) and 58 DA (46.8%). Both groups showed no significant differences in postoperative ODI, LBP, or satisfaction. The degree of spondylolisthesis, facet joint diastasis and effusion, sagittal disbalance, and severity of LBP were identified as the most important factors for deciding on DA or DF. The area under the curve of the decision-making score was 0.84. At a cutoff of three points indicating DF, the accuracy was 80.6%.

CONCLUSIONS

The two-year follow-up data showed that both groups showed similar improvement in ODI after both procedures, validating the respective decision. The developed score shows excellent predictive capabilities for the decision processes of different spine surgeons at a single tertiary center and highlights relevant clinical and radiographic parameters. Further studies are needed to assess the external applicability of these findings.

Predicting postoperative outcomes in lumbar spinal fusion: development of a machine learning model

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS) is a prevalent spinal disorder, often requiring surgical intervention. Accurately predicting surgical outcomes is crucial to guide clinical decision-making, but this is challenging due to the multifactorial nature of postoperative results. Traditional risk assessment tools have limitations, and with the advent of machine learning, there is potential to enhance the precision and comprehensiveness of preoperative evaluations.

PURPOSE

We aimed to develop a machine-learning algorithm to predict surgical outcomes in patients with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS) undergoing spinal fusion surgery, only using preoperative data.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cross-sectional study.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Patients with DLS undergoing lumbar spinal fusion surgery.

OUTCOME MEASURES

This study aimed to predict the occurrence of lower back pain (LBP) ≥4 on the numeric analogue scale (NAS) 2 years after surgery. LBP was evaluated as the average pain patients experienced at rest in the week before questioning. NAS ranges from 0 to 10, 0 representing no pain and 10 representing the worst pain imaginable.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of prospectively enrolled patients who underwent spinal fusion surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylolistheses at our institution in the United States between January 2016 and December 2018. The initial patient characteristics to be included in the training of the model were chosen by clinical expertise and through a literature review and included demographic characteristics, comorbidities, and radiologic features. The data was split into a training and validation datasets using a 60/40 split. Four different machine learning models were trained, including the modern XGBoost model, logistic regression, random-forest, and support vector machine (SVM). The models were evaluated according to the area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve. An AUC of 0.7 to 0.8 was considered fair, 0.8 to 0.9 good, and ≥ 0.9 excellent. Additionally, a calibration plot and the Brier score were calculated for each model.

RESULTS

A total of 135 patients (66% female) were included. A total of 38 (28%) patients reported LBP ≥ 4 after 2 years, representing the positive class. The XGBoost model demonstrated the best performance in the validation set with an AUC of 0.81 (95% CI 0.67-0.95). The other machine learning models performed significantly worse: with an AUC of 0.52 (95% CI 0.37-0.68) for the SVM, 0.56 (95% CI 0.37-0.76) for the logistic regression and an AUC of 0.56 (95% CI 0.37-0.78) for the random forest. In the XGBoost model age, composition of the erector spinae, and severity of lumbar spinal stenosis as were identified as the most important features.

CONCLUSIONS

This study represents a novel approach to predicting surgical outcomes in spinal fusion patients. The XGBoost demonstrated a better performance compared with classical models and highlighted the potential contributions of age and paraspinal musculature atrophy as significant factors. These findings have important implications for enhancing patient care through the identification of high-risk individuals and modifiable risk factors. As the incorporation of machine learning algorithms into clinical decision-making continues to gain traction in research and clinical practice, our insights reinforce this trajectory by showcasing the potential of these techniques in forecasting surgical results.

Surgical versus nonsurgical management of lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis based on spinal canal cross-sectional area

Disability and pain associated with lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis (LDS) result in a significant burden on both the healthcare costs and patients' quality of life. Currently, there exists controversy regarding employment of either nonsurgical management (NSM) or surgical management (SM) in a clinical setting. Spinal canal cross-sectional area (SCA) has been an important morphological parameter for the analysis of LDS. However, there is lack of research about the comparative value of NSM and SM according to SCA. Moreover, previous research have not yet evaluated the clinical most suitable cutoff values of SCA. The objective of this research was to evaluate the effective of NSM and SM for LDS using SCA as an objective morphological parameter. The axial T2 magnetic resonance imaging images were obtained from each patient. We collected SCA samples from 149 patients with LDS. 72 patients underwent SM and the rest did NSM. We measured SCA at the L4/5 LDS on magnetic resonance imaging using a picture archiving and communications system. We measured SCA at the intervertebral disk posterior border, turning down to reach the facet joint side on the opposite edge at the L4/5 level. The average SCA value was 114.34 ± 48.11 mm2 in the NSM group and 69.88 ± 27.87 mm2 in the SM group. Therefore, the SM group had considerably lower SCA (P < .001). In view of the effectiveness of SCA as a prediction factor of surgical option, Receiver Operating Characteristic curve analysis show the optimal cutoff value for SCA as 83.21 mm2, with 70.8% sensitivity, 71.4% specificity, and an area under the curve of 0.80 (95% CI, 0.73-0.87). The narrower the SCA, the higher the probability of SM. Thus, it is proposed that to evaluate surgical decision making, the pain physician should carefully inspect the SCA.

Management of Low and High Grades Spondylolisthesis

Spondylolisthesis is defined as the displacement or misalignment of the vertebral bodies one on top of the other. It comes from the Greek spondlylos, which means vertebra, and olisthesis, which means sliding on a slope. The nomenclature used to refer to spondylolisthesis consists of the following elements: vertebral segment (vertebrae involved), degree of sliding of one vertebral body over the other, the position of the upper vertebral body with respect to the lower one (anterolisthesis/retrolisthesis), and finally the etiology [1].

How Do Standing Neutral, Supine Lateral, Standing Flexion, and Standing Extension Radiographs Compare in Detecting the Presence and Magnitude of Stable and Dynamic Spondylolisthesis?

BACKGROUND

Clinical guidelines recommend standing radiographs as the most appropriate imaging for detecting degenerative spondylolisthesis, although reliable evidence about the standing position is absent. To our knowledge, no studies have compared different radiographic views and pairings to detect the presence and magnitude of stable and dynamic spondylolisthesis.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) What is the percentage of new patients presenting with back or leg pain with stable (3 mm or greater listhesis on standing radiographs) and dynamic (3 mm or greater listhesis difference on standing-supine radiographs) spondylolisthesis? (2) What is the difference in the magnitude of spondylolisthesis between standing and supine radiographs? (3) What is the difference in the magnitude of dynamic translation among flexion-extension, standing-supine, and flexion-supine radiographic pairs?

METHODS

This cross-sectional, diagnostic study was performed at an urban, academic institution between September 2010 and July 2016; 579 patients 40 years or older received a standard radiographic three-view series (standing AP, standing lateral, and supine lateral radiographs) at a new patient visit. Of those individuals, 89% (518 of 579) did not have any of the following: history of spinal surgery, evidence of vertebral fracture, scoliosis greater than 30°, or poor image quality. In the absence of a reliable diagnosis of dynamic spondylolisthesis using this three-view series, patients may have had flexion and extension radiographs, and approximately 6% (31 of 518) had flexion and extension radiographs. A total of 53% (272 of 518) of patients were female, and the patients had a mean age of 60 ± 11 years. Listhesis distance (in mm) was measured by two raters as displacement of the posterior surface of the superior vertebral body in relation to the posterior surface of the inferior vertebral body from L1 to S1; interrater and intrarater reliability, assessed with intraclass correlation coefficients, was 0.91 and 0.86 to 0.95, respectively. The percentage of patients with and the magnitude of stable spondylolisthesis was estimated on and compared between standing neutral and supine lateral radiographs. The ability of common pairs of radiographs (flexion-extension, standing-supine, and flexion-supine) to detect dynamic spondylolisthesis was assessed. No single radiographic view or pair was considered the gold standard because stable or dynamic listhesis on any radiographic view is often considered positive in clinical practice.

RESULTS

Among 518 patients, the percentage of patients with spondylolisthesis was 40% (95% CI 36% to 44%) on standing radiographs alone, and the percentage of patients with dynamic spondylolisthesis was 11% (95% CI 8% to 13%) on the standing-supine pair. Standing radiographs detected greater listhesis than supine radiographs did (6.5 ± 3.9 mm versus 4.9 ± 3.8 mm, difference 1.7 mm [95% CI 1.2 to 2.1 mm]; p < 0.001). Among 31 patients, no single radiographic pairing identified all patients with dynamic spondylolisthesis. The listhesis difference detected between flexion-extension was no different from the listhesis difference detected between standing-supine (1.8 ± 1.7 mm versus 2.0 ± 2.2 mm, difference 0.2 mm [95% CI -0.5 to 1.0 mm]; p = 0.53) and flexion-supine (1.8 ± 1.7 mm versus 2.5 ± 2.2 mm, difference 0.7 mm [95% CI 0.0 to 1.5]; p = 0.06).

CONCLUSION

This study supports current clinical guidelines that lateral radiographs should be obtained with patients in the standing position, because all cases of stable spondylolisthesis of 3 mm or greater were detected on standing radiographs alone. Each radiographic pair did not detect different magnitudes of listhesis, and no single pair detected all cases of dynamic spondylolisthesis. Clinical concern for dynamic spondylolisthesis may justify standing neutral, supine lateral, standing flexion, and standing extension views. Future studies could identify and evaluate a set of radiographic views that provides the greatest capacity to diagnose stable and dynamic spondylolisthesis.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, diagnostic study.

Study of the Distribution of Lumbar Modic Changes in Patients with Low Back Pain and Correlation with Lumbar Degeneration Diseases

Purpose

To study the distribution of lumbar Modic changes (MC) in low back pain patients, and to explore the relationship between Modic changes and age, gender, segment and lumbar degeneration diseases (disc degeneration, spinal stenosis, lumbar spondylolisthesis).

Patients and Methods

Modic changes were counted and analysed in 500 randomly selected patients who visited the outpatient clinic for lumbar spine MRI for low back pain from 2019 to 2022. The relationship between Modic changes and bulging disc, protrusion, extrusion, sequestration, Schmorl's node, spinal stenosis, and lumbar spondylolisthesis was studied. Data correlations were compared using the chi-square test, P<0.05 was considered a statistically significant difference.

Results

Modic changes were present in 184 segments. 58 were type I, 119 were type II, and 7 were type III. The number of Modic changes segments in L1-2, L2-3, L3-4, L4-5, and L5-S1 was 10, 22, 22, 58, and 72, respectively. Modic changes by gender occurred in 44 males and 82 females, and by age grouping were 0 cases in 10-19 years, 3 cases in 20-29 years, 6 cases in 30-39 years, 41 cases in 40-49 years, 64 cases in 50-59 years, 38 cases in 60-69 years, 15 cases in 70-79 years, and 5 cases in 80-89 years, respectively. Modic changes occurred in 56 with bulging disc, 45 with Protrusion, 57 with Extrusion and Sequestration, 32 with Schmorl's node, 32 with spondylolisthesis, and 56 with stenosis. Modic changes correlated with all of the above factors except bulging disc, and all differences were statistically significant (P<0.05).

Conclusion

The most common type of Modic changes is type II; Modic changes have correlation with age, gender, segment, lumbar disc herniation, lumbar spondylolisthesis, and lumbar spinal stenosis, and are a very important factor in low back pain.

Rehabilitation after lumbar spine surgery in adults: a systematic review with meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The role of rehabilitation after surgery in patients with low back pain is well recognized. The aim of this systematic review is to summarize and update the existing evidence according to the type of clinical condition and rehabilitation approach.

METHODS

This systematic review included RCTs on the effectiveness of rehabilitation after surgery for lumbar disc herniation, spinal stenosis, and spondylolisthesis. We searched the literature for randomized controlled trials indexed in MEDLINE, Embase, CINHAL, CENTRAL, Scopus, PEDro, and Web of Science databases, up to April 15, 2023. We used Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool to assess each study. We conducted a quantitative synthesis when population, intervention, control, and outcome were sufficiently homogeneous; otherwise, we conducted a qualitative analysis.

RESULTS

Forty-five studies (3.036 subjects) were included and analyzed according to the population considered: lumbar stenosis (1 trial), spondylolisthesis (3 trials), and disc herniation (41 trials). Regarding lumbar stenosis, a supervised active exercise program appears to improve outcomes related to pain, disability, and quality of life both in the short- and mid-term (1 study, n = 60). Concerning spondylolisthesis, kinesiophobia is reduced in the home exercises group compared to usual care, at 3-months follow-up (3 studies, n = 98). For disk herniation, supervised exercises are better than non-supervised exercises to reduce pain (MD -1.14; 95% CIs -1.65, -0.62; 5 trials, n = 250) and disability (SMD -0.70; 95% CIs -1.14, -0.26; 4 trials, n = 175). Supervised exercises are better than advice in reducing pain (SMD -0.91; 95% CIs -1.61, -0.21; 5 trials, n = 341) and disability (SMD -0.80; 95% CIs -1.59, -0.01; 4 trials, n = 261), in the short-term. Supervised exercises are equal to no treatment in reducing pain and disability, at 3 and 6 months after intervention (2 trials, n = 166). These results are supported by a very low to low quality of evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

Our research suggests that supervised exercise may be effective in improving patient's pain and disability after lumbar surgery, but RCTs regarding lumbar spinal stenosis and lumbar spondylolisthesis are still scarce, with significant heterogeneity of proposed interventions.

Anterolateral versus posterior minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion surgery for spondylolisthesis: comparison of outcomes from a global, multicenter study at 12-months follow-up

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Several minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion techniques may be used as a treatment for spondylolisthesis to alleviate back and leg pain, improve function and provide stability to the spine. Surgeons may choose an anterolateral or posterior approach for the surgery however, there remains a lack of real-world evidence from comparative, prospective studies on effectiveness and safety with relatively large, geographically diverse samples and involving multiple surgical approaches.

PURPOSE

To test the hypothesis that anterolateral and posterior minimally invasive approaches are equally effective in treating patients with spondylolisthesis affecting one or two segments at 3-months follow-up and to report and compare patient reported outcomes and safety profiles between patients at 12-months post-surgery.

DESIGN

Prospective, multicenter, international, observational cohort study.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Patients with degenerative or isthmic spondylolisthesis who underwent 1- or 2-level minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Patient reported outcomes assessing disability (ODI), back pain (VAS), leg pain (VAS) and quality of life (EuroQol 5D-3L) at 4-weeks, 3-months and 12-months follow-up; adverse events up to 12-months; and fusion status at 12-months post-surgery using X-ray and/or CT-scan. The primary study outcome is improvement in ODI score at 3-months.

METHODS

Eligible patients from 26 sites across Europe, Latin America and Asia were consecutively enrolled. Surgeons with experience in minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion procedures used, according to clinical judgement, either an anterolateral (ie, ALIF, DLIF, OLIF) or posterior (MIDLF, PLIF, TLIF) approach. Mean improvement in disability (ODI) was compared between groups using ANCOVA with baseline ODI score used as a covariate. Paired t-tests were used to examine change from baseline in PRO for both surgical approaches at each timepoint after surgery. A secondary ANCOVA using a propensity score as a covariate was used to test the robustness of conclusions drawn from the between group comparison.

RESULTS

Participants receiving an anterolateral approach (n=114) compared to those receiving a posterior approach (n=112) were younger (56.9 vs 62.0 years, p <.001), more likely to be employed (49.1% vs 25.0%, p<.001), have isthmic spondylolisthesis (38.6% vs 16.1%, p<.001) and less likely to only have central or lateral recess stenosis (44.9% vs 68.4%, p=.004). There were no statistically significant differences between the groups for gender, BMI, tobacco use, duration of conservative care, grade of spondylolisthesis, or the presence of stenosis. At 3-months follow-up there was no difference in the amount of improvement in ODI between the anterolateral and posterior groups (23.2 ± 21.3 vs 25.8 ± 19.5, p=.521). There were no clinically meaningful differences between the groups on mean improvement for back- and leg-pain, disability, or quality of life until the 12-months follow-up. Fusion rates of those assessed (n=158; 70% of the sample), were equivalent between groups (anterolateral, 72/88 [81.8%] fused vs posterior, 61/70 [87.1%] fused; p=.390).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with degenerative lumbar disease and spondylolisthesis who underwent minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion presented statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements from baseline up to 12-months follow-up. There were no clinically relevant differences between patients operated on using an anterolateral or posterior approach.

Surgical treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: Effect of TLIF and slip reduction on sagittal alignment

INTRODUCTION

The surgical treatment of lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis (LDS) remains controversial. The aim of this study was to determine the effect of adding transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) to posterolateral fusion (PLF) on the local lordosis, sagittal alignment and potential complications. The second aim was to evaluate the effect of slip reduction on the same parameters.

HYPOTHESIS

The initial hypothesis was that TLIF provides better correction of the local lordosis and that reducing the slip improves the global sagittal balance.

METHODS

In this retrospective, single-center study, patients who had been operated on for LSD at one or two levels by laminectomy and PLF, with or without a TLIF cage, were included. Data collected consisted of age, sex, number of levels fused and whether or not a TLIF cage was used. Fusion was defined as the absence of indirect nonunion signs on radiographs at 2 years postoperative. The occurrence and time frame of any complications and the need for reoperation were documented. Lateral radiographs of the entire spine were analyzed preoperatively, in the early postoperative period (3 to 6 months) and at a minimum follow-up of 2 years. The following parameters were measured: pelvic parameters, C7 sagittal tilt (C7ST), spinosacral angle (SSA), maximum lumbar lordosis (LL), lordosis at slipped level (LS), slip percentage. The analysis compared patients treated by PLF and TLIF and determined the impact of slip reduction.

RESULTS

One hundred and three patients were included in the study (71% women). The mean follow-up was 38 months. The mean age was 69 years. Seventy-seven patients (75%) underwent PLF. Comparing the preoperative and early postoperative data identified 5.4% better spondylolisthesis reduction in the TLIF group than the PLF group (-8.9±9.5% vs -3.5±7.6%; p=0.04) that was not maintained at the final follow-up. The fusion rate was comparable between groups: 94% in APL and 89% in TLIF (p=0.7). The overall complication rate was 46% in the TLIF group versus 33% in the PLF group (p=0.35). A comparison based on whether or not the slip was reduced found significant improvement in the reduction group of the SSA by more than 6° (6.8°±6° vs 0.5°±7.4°; p=0.04). The fusion rate was 91% in the reduced group and 95% in the non-reduced group (p=0.81); the complication rate was 44% versus 28% in the non-reduced group (p=0.10).

CONCLUSION

This study shows that slip reduction helps to improve the sagittal alignment by increasing the SSA when treating LDS. Posterolateral fusion and TLIF produce comparable radiographic outcomes at 2 years postoperative in the segmental lordosis, slip reduction, global sagittal alignment and fusion rate.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Instrumented Versus Uninstrumented Posterolateral Fusion for Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

In Scandinavia, spinal fusion is frequently performed without instrumentation, as use of instrumentation in the elderly can be complicated by poor bone quality and the risk of screw pull-out. However, uninstrumented fusion carries the risk of nonunion. We performed a randomized controlled trial in an attempt to determine if use of instrumentation leads to better outcomes and fusion rates when spinal fusion is performed for degenerative spondylolisthesis in the elderly.

METHODS

This was a randomized, single-center, open-label trial of patients with symptomatic single-level degenerative spondylolisthesis who were assigned 1:1 to decompression and fusion with or without instrumentation after at least 12 weeks of nonoperative treatment had failed. The primary outcome was the change in the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and secondary outcomes included fusion rates within 1 year, reoperation rates within 2 years, and changes in the EuroQol-5 Dimension-3 Level (EQ-5D) score.

RESULTS

Fifty-four subjects were randomized to each of the 2 groups, which had similar preoperative demographic and surgical characteristics. We found similar improvements in the ODI (p = 0.791), back pain, leg pain, and quality of life between groups at 1 and 2 years of follow-up. Solid fusion on computed tomography (CT) scans was noted in 94% of the patients in the instrumented group and 31% in the uninstrumented group (p < 0.001). One patient (2%) in the instrumented group and 7 (13%) in the uninstrumented group (p = 0.031) had a reoperation within 2 years after the index surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

We found no difference in patient-reported outcomes when we compared instrumented with uninstrumented fusion in patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis. The uninstrumented group had a significantly higher rate of nonunion and reoperations at 2 years.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level I . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Decompression alone versus decompression with instrumented fusion in the treatment of lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials

OBJECTIVE

To determine the efficacy of adding instrumented spinal fusion to decompression to treat degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS).

DESIGN

Systematic review with meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, Embase, Emcare, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Scopus, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from inception to May 2022.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR STUDY SELECTION

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing decompression with instrumented fusion to decompression alone in patients with DS. Two reviewers independently screened the studies, assessed the risk of bias and extracted data. We provide the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation assessment of the certainty of evidence (COE).

RESULTS

We identified 4514 records and included four trials with 523 participants. At a 2-year follow-up, adding fusion to decompression likely results in trivial difference in the Oswestry Disability Index (range 0-100, with higher values indicating greater impairment) with mean difference (MD) 0.86 (95% CI -4.53 to 6.26; moderate COE). Similar results were observed for back and leg pain measured on a scale of 0 to 100, with higher values indicating more severe pain. There was a slightly increased improvement in back pain (2-year follow-up) in the group without fusion shown by MD -5·92 points (95% CI -11.00 to -0.84; moderate COE). There was a trivial difference in leg pain between the groups, slightly favouring the one without fusion, with MD -1.25 points (95% CI -6.71 to 4.21; moderate COE). Our findings at 2-year follow-up suggest that omitting fusion may increase the reoperation rate slightly (OR 1.23; 0.70 to 2.17; low COE).

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence suggests no benefits of adding instrumented fusion to decompression for treating DS. Isolated decompression seems sufficient for most patients. Further RCTs assessing spondylolisthesis stability are needed to determine which patients would benefit from fusion.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42022308267.

Deep learning system assisted detection and localization of lumbar spondylolisthesis

Objective: Explore a new deep learning (DL) object detection algorithm for clinical auxiliary diagnosis of lumbar spondylolisthesis and compare it with doctors' evaluation to verify the effectiveness and feasibility of the DL algorithm in the diagnosis of lumbar spondylolisthesis. Methods: Lumbar lateral radiographs of 1,596 patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis from three medical institutions were collected, and senior orthopedic surgeons and radiologists jointly diagnosed and marked them to establish a database. These radiographs were randomly divided into a training set (n = 1,117), a validation set (n = 240), and a test set (n = 239) in a ratio of 0.7 : 0.15: 0.15. We trained two DL models for automatic detection of spondylolisthesis and evaluated their diagnostic performance by PR curves, areas under the curve, precision, recall, F1-score. Then we chose the model with better performance and compared its results with professionals' evaluation. Results: A total of 1,780 annotations were marked for training (1,242), validation (263), and test (275). The Faster Region-based Convolutional Neural Network (R-CNN) showed better precision (0.935), recall (0.935), and F1-score (0.935) in the detection of spondylolisthesis, which outperformed the doctor group with precision (0.927), recall (0.892), f1-score (0.910). In addition, with the assistance of the DL model, the precision of the doctor group increased by 4.8%, the recall by 8.2%, the F1-score by 6.4%, and the average diagnosis time per plain X-ray was shortened by 7.139 s. Conclusion: The DL detection algorithm is an effective method for clinical diagnosis of lumbar spondylolisthesis. It can be used as an assistant expert to improve the accuracy of lumbar spondylolisthesis diagnosis and reduce the clinical workloads.

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.

Personalized Interventional Surgery of the Lumbar Spine: A Perspective on Minimally Invasive and Neuroendoscopic Decompression for Spinal Stenosis

Pain generator-based lumbar spinal decompression surgery is the backbone of modern spine care. In contrast to traditional image-based medical necessity criteria for spinal surgery, assessing the severity of neural element encroachment, instability, and deformity, staged management of common painful degenerative lumbar spine conditions is likely to be more durable and cost-effective. Targeting validated pain generators can be accomplished with simplified decompression procedures associated with lower perioperative complications and long-term revision rates. In this perspective article, the authors summarize the current concepts of successful management of spinal stenosis patients with modern transforaminal endoscopic and translaminar minimally invasive spinal surgery techniques. They represent the consensus statements of 14 international surgeon societies, who have worked in collaborative teams in an open peer-review model based on a systematic review of the existing literature and grading the strength of its clinical evidence. The authors found that personalized clinical care protocols for lumbar spinal stenosis rooted in validated pain generators can successfully treat most patients with sciatica-type back and leg pain including those who fail to meet traditional image-based medical necessity criteria for surgery since nearly half of the surgically treated pain generators are not shown on the preoperative MRI scan. Common pain generators in the lumbar spine include (a) an inflamed disc, (b) an inflamed nerve, (c) a hypervascular scar, (d) a hypertrophied superior articular process (SAP) and ligamentum flavum, (e) a tender capsule, (f) an impacting facet margin, (g) a superior foraminal facet osteophyte and cyst, (h) a superior foraminal ligament impingement, (i) a hidden shoulder osteophyte. The position of the key opinion authors of the perspective article is that further clinical research will continue to validate pain generator-based treatment protocols for lumbar spinal stenosis. The endoscopic technology platform enables spine surgeons to directly visualize pain generators, forming the basis for more simplified targeted surgical pain management therapies. Limitations of this care model are dictated by appropriate patient selection and mastering the learning curve of modern MIS procedures. Decompensated deformity and instability will likely continue to be treated with open corrective surgery. Vertically integrated outpatient spine care programs are the most suitable setting for executing such pain generator-focused programs.

Changes in standing and walking time after multimodal physical rehabilitation in low grade degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: a non-randomised pilot study

BACKGROUND

Surgery is often prescribed to patients with significant reduction in standing time (ST) and walking time (WT) due to degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS). The efficacy of a multimodal physical rehabilitation protocol (MPRP) in improving ST and WT in patients with DLS is not known.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effect of MPRP on ST and WT in patients with DLS and compare the results with similar patients treated with other physiotherapy treatment (OPT) methods.

METHODS

Outcomes including numerical pain rating scale (NPRS) and Oswestry disability index (ODI) scores, ST and WT were compared in patients in the MPRP and OPT groups.

RESULTS

Data from 25 patients in MPRP group and 10 patients in OPT group were analyzed. In the MPRP group, the mean NPRS and ODI scores, ST, and WT improved significantly (p < .0001) after MPRP at a mean follow-up of 328 days. The mean NPRS score was significantly lower (p = .0001); mean ST (p = .03), and mean WT (p = .03) were significantly higher; and the mean NPRS improvement (p < .0001), mean ST improvement (p = .001), and mean WT improvement (p = .008) were significantly higher in MPRP group when compared to the OPT group at final follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Patients with low-grade DLS showed significant improvement in ST and WT after MPRP when compared to similar patients who underwent other physiotherapy treatments. These encouraging results indicate that MPRP can be utilized as a primary treatment option in patients with significantly reduced ST and WT due to DLS.

Robotic assistance in lumbar fusion surgery: trends and patterns from 2016-2019

PURPOSE

Robotic-assisted spine surgery is an emerging field that is growing in utilization. Intraoperative robotic surgical units cost upwards of $600,000 for medical facilities to purchase. Despite significant cost barriers, these devices are highly marketable for hospitals and physicians.

METHODS

The Nationwide Inpatient Sample database from 2016 to 2019 was reviewed. Inclusion criteria were patients over 18 years of age who underwent elective lumbar spinal fusion. Trends of robotic-assisted lumbar fusion were examined over time, as well as stratified based on patient and surgical characteristics.

RESULTS

A total of 176,377 patients met the inclusion criteria. The overall rate of robotic-assisted lumbar fusion was 1.2% (2,131/174,246). Patients with private insurance were more likely to receive robotic-assisted lumbar fusion (40.3% vs. 37.5%; p < 0.05). Stratifying by race, whites were more likely to receive robotic-assisted lumbar fusion (84.1% vs. 79.5%; p < 0.05). Patients who underwent robotic-assisted lumbar fusion were significantly more likely to have a diagnosis of spondylolisthesis compared to those that underwent non-robotic-assisted lumbar fusion (25.9% vs. 22.0%; p < 0.05). Patients with lumbar fusion done via the anterior approach were more likely to have robotic-assisted surgery compared to other approaches (25.2% vs. 21.3; p < 0.05). Overall, there was a steady increase in its use over time, with patients who underwent lumbar fusion procedures four times more likely to receive robotic assistance in 2019 compared to 2016 (OR: 4.0; 95% CI: 3.5-4.6; p < 0.0001). Robotic-assisted lumbar fusion was associated with higher inpatient costs ($170,036.40 vs. $139,026.10; p < 0.0001) despite having equivalent length of stay (3.31 ± 2.6 vs.3.37 ± 2.6; p = 0.06).

CONCLUSION

Robotic-assisted lumbar fusion is on the rise. Patients who had private insurance, were diagnosed with spondylolisthesis, and who had lumbar fusion via the anterior approach were more likely to undergo lumbar fusion using robotic assistance.

Comparison of 270-degree percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic decompression under local anesthesia and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of geriatric lateral recess stenosis associated with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis

PURPOSE

Various lumbar decompression techniques have been used for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS). Few studies have compared the clinical efficacy of percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic decompression (PTED) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) in the treatment of lateral recess stenosis associated with DLS (LRS-DLS) in geriatric patients. The objective of the study was to compare the safety and short-term clinical efficacy of 270-degree PTED under local anesthesia and MIS-TLIF in the treatment of LRS-DLS in Chinese geriatric patients over 60 years old.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From January 2017 to August 2019, the data of 90 consecutive geriatric patients with single-level L4-5 LRS-DLS were retrospectively reviewed, including those in the PTED group (n = 44) and MIS-TLIF group (n = 46). The patients were followed up for at least 1 year. Patient demographics and perioperative outcomes were reviewed before and after surgery. The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), visual analog scale (VAS) for leg pain, and modified MacNab criteria were used to evaluate the clinical outcomes. X-ray examinations were performed 1 year after surgery to assess the progression of spondylolisthesis in the PTED group and bone fusion in the MIS-TLIF group.

RESULTS

The mean patient ages in the PTED and MIS-TLIF groups were 70.3 years and 68.6 years, respectively. Both the PTED and MIS-TLIF groups demonstrated significant improvements in the VAS score for leg pain and ODI score, and no significant differences were found between the groups at any time point (P > 0.05). Although the good-to-excellent rate of the modified MacNab criteria in the PTED group was similar to that in the MIS-TLIF group (90.9% vs. 91.3%, P > 0.05), PTED was advantageous in terms of the operative time, estimated blood loss, incision length, drainage time, drainage volume, length of hospital stay, and complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Both PTED and MIS-TLIF led to favorable outcomes in geriatric patients with LRS-DLS. In addition, PTED caused less severe trauma and fewer complications. In terms of perioperative quality-of-life and clinical outcomes, PTED could supplement MIS-TLIF in geriatric patients with LRS-DLS.

Clinical Outcomes with and without Adherence to Evidence-Based Medicine Guidelines for Lumbar Degenerative Spondylolisthesis Fusion Patients

INTRODUCTION

Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DS) patients are treated with instrumented fusion, following EBM guidelines, and typically have excellent clinical outcomes. However, not all lumbar fusion procedures adhere to EBM guidelines, typically due to a lack of prospective data.

OBJECTIVE

This retrospective study compared outcomes of DS lumbar fusion patients treated according to EBM guidelines (EBM concordant) to lumbar fused patients with procedures that did not have clear EBM literature that supported this treatment, the goal being to examine the value of present EBM to guide clinical care.

METHODS

A total of 125 DS patients were considered EBM concordant, while 21 patients were EBM discordant. Pre- and postsurgical ODI scores were collected. Clinical outcomes were stratified into substantial clinical benefit (SCB ΔODI >10 points), minimal clinical importance benefit (MCID ΔODI ≥ 5 points), no MCID (ΔODI < 5 points), and a group that showed no change or worsening ODI. Fisher's exact and χ2 tests for categorical variables, Student's t-test for continuous variables, and descriptive statistics were used. Statistical tests were computed at the 95% level of confidence.

RESULTS

Analysis of 125 degenerative spondylolisthesis patients was performed comparing preoperative and postoperative (6 months) ODI scores. ODI improved by 8 points in the EBM concordant group vs. 2.1 points in the EBM discordant group (p = 0.002). Compliance with EBM guidelines was associated with an odds ratio (OR) of 2.93 for achieving MCID ([CI]: 1.12-7.58, p = 0.027).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients whose lumbar fusions met EBM criteria had better self-reported outcomes at six months than those who did not meet the requirements. A greater knowledge set is needed to help further support EBM-guided patient care.

Functional outcome of surgical management of low mid-grade lumbar spondylolisthesis when considering the sagittal balance parameters preoperatively: a prospective study

BACKGROUND

Prospective study objectives. A sagittal balance is a good tool to improve the functional outcome of spine spondylolisthesis surgeries, primarily noted that it has a good impact in deformity surgery and then applied to every spine surgery and the aim of this study is to evaluate its functional outcome when considered in preoperative planning for non-dysplastic low- and mid-grade spondylolisthesis surgeries.

METHOD

Forty patients diagnosed as low- or mid-grade non-dysplastic spondylolisthesis had undergone surgery at Cairo University after failed medical treatment had been evaluated preoperatively by measuring the sagittal balance parameters which include SVA, spinopelvic angles, lumbar lordosis, pelvic tilt, sacral slope, and pelvic incidence and then measure it along a follow-up period of 1 year postoperatively started from February 2018 and correlate it with functional outcome using Oswestry score (ODI)and VAS. Correction of parameters has been estimated preoperatively by manual estimation and Surgimap application then applied during the operation.

RESULTS

All patients were treated by surgical treatment through posterior transpedicular screw fixation with conventional or reduction screws and fusion ± TLIF cages. The mean of lumbar lordosis and mean spinopelvic angles were increased in a statistically significant manner. Pelvis tilt was decreased in a statistically insignificant manner. The mean of pelvic incidence was not changed and statistically insignificant, and this is matching the fact that pelvic incidence is a constant parameter. The sacral slope was increased in a statistically insignificant manner. Final results showed that 37 had a statistically significant improvement in their ODI >20% at the last visit. Three patients had a poor clinical outcome with ODI scorFinal results showed that 37 had a statistically significant improvement in their ODI >20% at the last visit. Three patients had a poor clinical outcome with ODI score of >20% improvement, and we noticed that the level of pathology was at the level of L4L5, SVA was positive and worsen postoperatively, and also, it is accompanied by decreased lumbar lordosis. Change in ODI means statistically significant improvement when considering sagittal parameters preoperation and during operation.

CONCLUSION

Sagittal balance parameters should be considered in the surgical management of low-grade spondylolisthesis cases to improve their functional outcome.

Evaluating Instability in Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: Objective Variables Versus Surgeon Impressions

The subjective degenerative spondylolisthesis instability classification (S-DSIC) system attempts to define preoperative instability associated with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS). The system guides surgical decision-making based on numerous indicators of instability that surgeons subjectively assess and incorporate. A more objective classification is warranted in order to decrease variation among surgeons. In this study, our objectives included (1) proposing an objective version of the DSIC system (O-DSIC) based on the best available clinical and biomechanical data and (2) comparing subjective surgeon perceptions (S-DSIC) with an objective measure (O-DSIC) of instability related to DLS.

METHODS

In this multicenter cohort study, we prospectively enrolled 408 consecutive adult patients who received surgery for symptomatic DLS. Surgeons prospectively categorized preoperative instability using the existing S-DSIC system. Subsequently, an O-DSIC system was created. Variables selected for inclusion were assigned point values based on previously determined evidence quality. DSIC types were derived by point summation: 0 to 2 points was considered stable, Type I); 3 points, potentially unstable, Type II; and 4 to 5 points, unstable, Type III. Surgeons' subjective perceptions of instability (S-DSIC) were retrospectively compared with O-DSIC types.

RESULTS

The O-DSIC system includes 5 variables: presence of facet effusion, disc height preservation (≥6.5 mm), translation (≥4 mm), a kyphotic or neutral disc angle in flexion, and low back pain (≥5 of 10 intensity). Type I (n = 176, 57.0%) and Type II (n = 164, 53.0%) were the most common DSIC types according to the O-DSIC and S-DSIC systems, respectively. Surgeons categorized higher degrees of instability with the S-DSIC than the O-DSIC system in 130 patients (42%) (p < 0.001). The assignment of DSIC types was not influenced by demographic variables with either system.

CONCLUSIONS

The O-DSIC system facilitates objective assessment of preoperative instability related to DLS. Surgeons assigned higher degrees of instability with the S-DSIC than the O-DSIC system in 42% of cases.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Diagnostic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Current Clinical Concepts: Management of Common Lumbar Spine Posterior Column Disorders in Young, Active Individuals

Although posterior column disorders, such as spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis, are not commonly encountered in the general population, athletic trainers frequently see these conditions in athletic and active individuals due to the repetitive spinal extension and rotational loads placed on the pars interarticularis while participating in sport. Athletic trainers can successfully evaluate patients with posterior column disorders by performing a complete and comprehensive clinical examination to identify the location of pain, test spinal stability, and recognize compensatory movement patterns. Conservative management typically leads to a successful outcome in this population, with rest, bracing, and the use of therapeutic exercise having the best supporting evidence. In this Current Clinical Concepts review, we outlined the etiology and risk factors frequently associated with disorders of the posterior column. Additionally, we synthesized the literature for common evaluation techniques and interventions associated with the posterior column and provided a proposed rehabilitation progression to use in a younger, athletic population.

Current treatment and decision-making factors leading to fusion vs decompression for one-level degenerative spondylolisthesis: survey results from members of the Lumbar Spine Research Society and Society of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery

BACKGROUND

Degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) is one of the most common pathologies spine surgeons treat. While a number of potential factors have been identified, there is no current consensus on which variables most impact the decision to fuse vs. decompress alone in this population.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to describe current DS treatment practices and identify both the radiographic and clinical factors leading to the decision to fuse segments for one level DS.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

Descriptive cross-sectional survey.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Surveys were administered to members of Lumbar Spine Research Society and Society of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Surgeon demographics and treatment practices were reported. Radiographic and clinical parameters were ranked by each surgeon with regards to their importance.

METHODS

The primary analysis was limited to completed surveys. Baseline characteristics were summarized. Clinical and radiographic parameters were ranked and compared. Ranking of each clinical and radiographic parameters was reported using best and worst rank, mean rank position, and percentiles. The most important, top 3 most important, and top 5 most important parameters were ordered given each parameter's ranking frequency.

RESULTS

381 surveys were returned completed. With regards to fusion vs. decompression, 19.9% fuse all cases, 39.1% fuse > 75%, 17.8% fuse 50%-75%, and 23.2% fuse <25%. The most common decompressive technique was a partial laminotomy (51.4%), followed by full laminectomy (28.9%). 82.2% of respondents instrument all fusion cases. Instability (93.2%), spondylolisthesis grade (59.8%), and laterolisthesis (37.3%) were the most common radiographic factors impacting the decision to fuse. With regards to the clinical factors leading to fusion, mechanical low back pain (83.2%), activity level (58.3%), and neurogenic claudication (42.8%) were the top 3 clinical parameters.

CONCLUSIONS

There is little consensus on the treatment of DS, with society members showing substantial variation in treatment patterns with the majority utilizing fusion for treatment. The most common radiographic parameters impacting treatment are instability, spondylolisthesis grade, and laterolisthesis while mechanical low back pain, activity level, and neurogenic claudication are the most common clinical parameters.

Comparison of the Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Diseases: A Retrospective Matched Case-Control Study

OBJECTIVE

We compared the clinical outcomes of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Mis-TLIF) and endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-TLIF).

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of patients who underwent single-segment Mis-TLIF or Endo-TLIF between June 2016 and June 2019 at our hospital. The patients in each treatment group were matched 1:1 for sex, age, and type of lumbar degenerative disease, and their clinical outcomes were compared at discharge and at 1 and 2 years postoperatively.

RESULTS

Our study included 64 patients, with 32 patients in each treatment group. Operative time and fluoroscopy time were significantly higher in the Endo-TLIF versus Mis-TLIF groups, whereas estimated blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, and the low back pain visual analog scale score at discharge were significantly lower. Both treatments achieved exact interbody fusion at the final-follow up. There was no significant difference in the visual analog scale score or Oswestry Disability Index between the groups at 1 and 2 years postoperatively. Complication rates were higher in the Endo-TLIF group (21.9%) than in the Mis-TLIF group (6.2%), although the difference was not significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Although there was no difference in the long-term outcomes between the treatments, Endo-TLIF had less blood loss and a lower postoperative drainage volume and low back pain visual analog scale score at discharge than Mis-TLIF. However, the longer operative time and potentially higher complication rate of Endo-TLIF suggest that surgeons may need to overcome the steeper learning curve than the procedure of Mis-TLIF.

Radiological Outcomes of Reduction Surgery for Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis Using Long Arm Pedicle Screws

Objective

Until now, the spondylolisthesis reduction technique has relied on posterior instrumentation using long arm pedicle screws. In this way, the segments will be brought into alignment with the other vertebrae with the pedicle mats being tightened. The aim of this study is to acknowledge whether reduction surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS) using long arm pedicle screws is able to correct the listhesis and spinopelvic parameters.

Methods

We carried out a retrospective study of patients with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis who went through reduction surgery using long arm pedicle screws in our institutions from January 2019 to March 2022. Preoperative and postoperative radiological outcomes consisting of listhesis and spinopelvic parameters were assessed.

Results

We found a statistical difference between the magnitude of listhesis immediately after surgery and preoperatively (p<0.001), with a successful correction of 85.85%. There was significant decrease in the value of pelvic tilt (p=0.044) and increase in the value of sacral slope (p=0.008) after surgery.

Conclusion

Reduction surgery using long arm pedicle screws for DLS was able to reduce the listhesis effectively up to 85.5%, and also to restore the parts of spinopelvic parameters, the pelvic tilt and sacral slope, approaching normal values.

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

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective review.

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to compare outcomes at 3 and 12 months for patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis treated with direct decompression (DD) versus indirect decompression (ID) techniques.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Debate persists regarding the optimal surgical strategy to treat lumbar spondylolisthesis. Novel techniques relying on ID have shown superior radiographic outcomes compared to DD, however, doubt remains regarding their effectiveness in achieving adequate decompression. Currently, there is a paucity of data comparing the clinical efficacy of DD to ID.

METHODS

The Quality Outcomes Database (QOD), a national, multicenter prospective spine registry, was queried for patients who underwent DD and ID between April 2013 and January 2019. Propensity scores for each treatment were estimated using logistic regression dependent on baseline covariates potentially associated with outcomes. The propensity scores were used to exclude nonsimilar patients. Multivariable regression analysis was performed with the treatment and covariate as independent variables and outcomes as dependent variables.

RESULTS

A total of 4163 patients were included in the DD group and 86 in the ID group. The ID group had significantly lower odds of having a longer hospital stay and for achieving 30% improvement in back and leg pain at 3 months. These trends were not statistically significant at 12 months. There were no differences in ED5D scores or Oswestry disability index 30% improvement scores at 3 or 12 months. ID patient had a significantly higher rate of undergoing a repeat operation at 3 months (4.9% vs. 1.5%, P =0.015).

CONCLUSION

Our study suggests that both DD and ID for the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis result in similar clinical outcomes, with the exception that those treated with ID experienced a lower reduction in back and leg pain at 3 months and a higher 3-month reoperation rate. This data can provide surgeons with additional information when counseling patients on the pros and cons of ID versus DD surgery.

Surgical outcomes between posterior decompression alone and posterior decompression with fusion surgery among patients with Meyerding grade 2 degenerative spondylolisthesis: a multicenter cohort study

Background

Whether lumbar decompression with fusion surgery is effective against Meyerding grade 2 degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) is unknown. Therefore, the current study aimed to compare the surgical outcomes between posterior decompression alone and posterior decompression with fusion surgery among patients with grade 2 DS with central canal stenosis.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study included prospectively registered patients (n = 3863) who underwent surgery for degenerative lumbar spinal canal stenosis at nine high-volume spine centers from April 2017 to July 2019. Patients with grade 2 DS and central canal stenosis were included in the analysis. Patients with radiculopathy, including foraminal stenosis, degenerative scoliosis, and concomitant anterior spinal fusion, and those with a previous history of lumbar surgery were excluded. The participants were divided into the decompression alone group (group D) and decompression with fusion surgery group (group F). Data about patient-reported outcomes, including Numeric Rating Scale (low back pain, leg pain, leg numbness, and foot numbness), Oswestry Disability Index, EuroQol Five-Dimensional questionnaire, and 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey scores, were obtained preoperatively and 2 years postoperatively.

Results

In total, 2354 (61%) patients, including 42 (1.8%) with grade 2 DS (n = 18 in group D and n = 24 in group F), completed the 2-year follow-up. Group D had a higher proportion of female patients than group F. However, the two groups did not significantly differ in terms of other baseline demographic characteristics. Group D had a significantly shorter surgical time and lower volume of intraoperative blood loss than group F. Postoperative patient-reported outcomes did not significantly differ between the two groups, although the preoperative degree of low back pain was higher in group F than in group D. The slip degree of group D did not worsen during the follow-up period.

Conclusion

The surgical outcomes were similar regardless of the addition of fusion surgery among patients with grade 2 DS. Decompression alone was superior to decompression with fusion surgery as it was associated with a lower volume of intraoperative blood loss and shorter surgical time.

Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis Patients With Movement-related Low Back Pain Have Less Postoperative Satisfaction After Decompression Alone

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected multicenter observational data.

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to examine the preoperative factors affecting postoperative satisfaction following posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) and microendoscopic muscle-preserving interlaminar decompression (ME-MILD) in patients with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

The technique involved in DLS surgery may either be decompression alone or decompression-fixation. Poor performance may occur after either of these surgical treatments. The author hypothesized that evaluating the correlation between preoperative quality of life and postoperative performance would aid in determining the optimal procedure.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study included 138 patients who underwent surgery for 1-level mild DLS. The authors performed PLIF for 79 patients and ME-MILD for 59 patients. When the satisfaction subscale of the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire exceeded 2 points, postoperative satisfaction was considered poor. The clinical characteristics were investigated. Responses to preoperative health-related quality of life questionnaires, such as the Japanese Orthopedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ), short form-36 health survey (SF-36), and visual analog scale, were compared between the satisfied and unsatisfied groups.

RESULTS

In the PLIF group, no endogenous factors influenced postoperative satisfaction. The ME-MILD cohort's satisfied and unsatisfied patients differed significantly in terms of preoperative lumbar spine dysfunction ( P <0.001) items of the JOABPEQ, role physical ( P =0.03), and role emotional ( P =0.03) items of the SF-36. A strong correlation ( r =-0.609 P =0.015) was found between preoperative lumbar spine dysfunction and postoperative satisfaction.

CONCLUSIONS

In the ME-MILD group, preoperative lumbar spine function was correlated with postoperative satisfaction. Decompression alone may be ineffective in cases with decreased lumbar spine function prior to surgery. The degree of low back pain on movement should be considered before selecting the surgical method.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

Analysis of Chronic Low Back Pain Caused by Lumbar Microinstability After Percutaneous Endoscopic Transforaminal Discectomy: A Retrospective Study

Objective

Chronic low back pain (CLBP) after percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal discectomy (PTED) surgery may be caused by preoperative lumbar microinstability (MI). However, there is a paucity of research on the relationship between lumbar microinstability and chronic low back pain. The purpose of this article is to assess the preoperative radiographic characteristics of patients and evaluate the effects of lumbar microinstability on patient-reported outcomes among single-level lumbar disc herniation (LDH) patients who underwent PTED.

Methods

This study retrospectively reviewed the radiographic characteristics of a consecutive series of 127 patients with low back pain and leg pain caused by single-level LDH underwent PTED from August 2018 to March 2021. They were divided into three groups according to the radiographic parameters: the stable group (Group S), the dysfunctional group (Group D), and the microinstability group (Group M). The visual analogue scale (VAS) scores for leg and low back pain and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were evaluated preoperatively and postoperatively. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify independent risk factors for CLBP.

Results

Compared with Group D and Group S, Group M had the highest ODI scores (P < 0.01) and VAS scores (low back pain) (P < 0.01) after 1 year, while there were no significant differences in the VAS scores for leg pain at different time points after surgery (P > 0.05). In addition, the logistic regression analysis results regarding CLBP revealed that muscle fatty degeneration on MRI (95% CI, 1.20-8.51, P = 0.02), and facet tropism (95% CI, 1.39 -11.37, P = 0.01) may be independent risk factors.

Conclusion

Patients with lumbar microinstability may have CLBP after PTED, so patients with lumbar microinstability may need to take internal fixation surgery to solve their symptoms.

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).

Does fusion status following posterolateral lumbar fusion in the treatment for stable lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis affect the long-term surgical outcomes? A propensity score-weighted analysis of consecutive patients

BACKGROUND

The surgical strategy of lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis (LDS) is controversial, especially regarding whether or not fusion should be used. Although some reports have indicated that decompression combined with fusion may be better than decompression alone in the treatment of LDS, the effect of fusion status after uninstrumented posterolateral lumbar fusion (PLF) on the outcomes of patients with stable LDS remains unknown. This study aimed to evaluate the surgical outcomes of uninstrumented PLF for stable LDS and clarify whether radiographic fusion status could affect surgical outcomes.

METHODS

A total of 93 consecutive patients who had undergone single-level uninstrumented PLF for Meyerding grade I LDS without preoperative dynamic instability with a minimum follow-up period of 5 years were retrospectively studied. Patients were divided into two groups: nonunion (52 patients) and union (41 patients). The primary outcomes were the 5-year percent recovery of postoperative Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Visual analog scale (VAS) scores, and reoperation rate. The outcome scores were compared between the groups using the inverse probability weighting method using propensity scores.

RESULTS

The union and nonunion groups had comparable weighted means of the 5-year postoperative clinical score for the percent recovery of the JOA score (70.2% vs. 71.1%, P = 0.86), ODI (14.5 vs.14.6, P = 0.98), VAS of low back pain (20.3 vs. 18.7 mm, P = 0.72), and VAS of leg pain (24.0 vs. 19.4 mm, P = 0.43). The reoperation rate was 2.4% (one case of adjacent segment pathology) in the union group and 0% in the nonunion group (P = 0.44).

CONCLUSION

The fusion status following uninstrumented PLF had no significant effect on the 5-year postoperative clinical outcomes and reoperation rate in patients with Meyerding grade I LDS without dynamic instability.

Radiographic Analysis of Pedicle Screw Retractor-Assisted Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Single-Segment Spondylolisthesis in Adults: A Retrospective Study and Technical Note

Objectives

The objective of this study was to introduce a retractor that can be temporarily installed on unilateral pedicle screws to achieve distraction‐reduction and nerve root protection, and to analyze the efficacy and safety of retractor‐assisted transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) in the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis.

Methods

This was a retrospective study of 125 patients who underwent retractor‐assisted TLIF for single‐segment spondylolisthesis from November 2017 to February 2021. Based on morphology, patients were divided into degenerative (N = 66) and isthmic groups (N = 59). Differences in demographics and preoperative characteristics between the groups were analyzed using the independent samples t‐test and χ² test. Changes in radiographic parameters (disc height, foramen height, spondylolisthesis degree, slippage length, and segmental lordosis) before and after surgery were compared using the paired samples t‐test. Logistic regression analysis was performed to analyze the relationship between facet joint angle (FJA) and degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS).

Results

Unilateral screw retractor‐assisted TLIF significantly corrected spondylolisthesis and improved disc height and segmental lordosis (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in foramen height between the two sides before and after operation (pre: 15.81 ± 3.58 mm vs 15.69 ± 3.68 mm, p = 0.599; post: 18.65 ± 2.31 mm vs 18.74 ± 2.26 mm, p = 0.516). The degree of spondylolisthesis in the DLS group before surgery was significantly lower than that in the isthmic spondylolisthesis group (17.70 ± 5.62% vs 25.18 ± 9.73%, p < 0.001), whereas a similar degree of correction could be achieved after surgery (5.91 ± 3.12% vs 7.16 ± 5.69%, p = 0.135). FJAs from L3/4 to L5/S1 were significantly smaller in patients with DLS than those in with isthmic spondylolisthesis (p < 0.05). Patients with facet sagittalization were more likely to have DLS (β: −0.101, odds ratio [OR]:0.904, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.874–0.934, p < 0.001), while the cut‐off FJA of L4/5 for predicting L4 spondylolisthesis was 53.19.

Conclusions

Pedicle screw retractor‐assisted TLIF is effective and safe in treating both degenerative and isthmic lumbar spondylolisthesis. The unilateral retractor has the capacity to maintain the disc height achieved by paddle distractors, which optimizes the nerve protection and distractor placement. Patients with an FJA on L4/5 <53.19 were more likely to have DLS.

Preoperative Patient-reported Outcomes are not Associated With Sagittal and Spinopelvic Alignment in Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate whether sagittal and spinopelvic alignment correlate with preoperative patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS) with spinal stenosis.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Positive global sagittal balance and spinopelvic malalignment are strongly correlated with symptom severity in adult spinal deformity, but this correlation has not been evaluated in DLS.

METHODS

Patients were enrolled in the Canadian Spine Outcomes Research Network (CSORN) prospective DLS study at seven centers between January 2015 and May 2018. Correlation was assessed between the following preoperative PROs: Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), numeric rating scale (NRS) leg pain, and NRS back pain and the following preoperative sagittal radiographic parameters SS, PT, PI, SVA, LL, TK, T1SPI, T9SPI, and PI-LL. Patients were further divided into groups based on spinopelvic alignment: Group 1 PI-LL<10°; Group 2 PI-LL ≥10° with PT <30°; and Group 3 PI-LL ≥10° with PT ≥30°. Preoperative PROs were compared among these three groups and were further stratified by those with SVA <50 mm and SVA ≥50 mm.

RESULTS

A total of 320 patients (61% female) with mean age of 66.1 years were included. Mean (SD) preoperative PROs were: NRS leg pain 7.4 (2.1), NRS back pain 7.1 (2.0), and ODI 45.5 (14.5). Preoperative radiographic parameters included: SVA 27.1 (33.4) mm, LL 45.7 (13.4°), PI 57.6 (11.9), and PI-LL 11.8 (14.0°). Weak but statistically significant correlations were observed between leg pain and PT (r = -0.114) and PI (ρ = -0.130), and T9SPI with back pain ( r  = 0.130). No significant differences were observed among the three groups stratified by PI-LL and PT. No significant differences in PROs were observed between patients with SVA <50 mm compared to those with SVA ≥50 mm.

CONCLUSION

Sagittal and spinopelvic malalignment do not appear to significantly influence baseline PROs in patients with DLS.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic level II.

Spondylolisthesis

Spondylolisthesis refers to the anterior, lateral, or posterior slippage of a superior vertebral disc over the adjacent inferior disc, and is often separated into categories based on the causative etiology. Spondylolisthesis is often asymptomatic but may present with low back pain and neurogenic claudication which is worsened with spinal extension and activity. A detailed history and physical exam, along with appropriate imaging tests are useful in making the diagnosis. Conservative therapy is first-line and includes pain management with physical therapy. Patients who fail conservative therapy may consider surgical decompression, stabilization, and fusion. This review aims to discuss the epidemiology, pathophysiology, presentation, and treatment options of spondylolisthesis.

More than one third of clinical practice guidelines on low back pain overlap in AGREE II appraisals. Research wasted?

BACKGROUND

Systematic reviews can apply the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE) II tool to critically appraise clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for treating low back pain (LBP); however, when appraisals differ in CPG quality rating, stakeholders, clinicians, and policy-makers will find it difficult to discern a unique judgement of CPG quality. We wanted to determine the proportion of overlapping CPGs for LBP in appraisals that applied AGREE II. We also compared inter-rater reliability and variability across appraisals.

METHODS

For this meta-epidemiological study we searched six databases for appraisals of CPGs for LBP. The general characteristics of the appraisals were collected; the unit of analysis was the CPG evaluated in each appraisal. The inter-rater reliability and the variability of AGREE II domain scores for overall assessment were measured using the intraclass correlation coefficient and descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Overall, 43 CPGs out of 106 (40.6%) overlapped in seventeen appraisals. Half of the appraisals (53%) reported a protocol registration. Reporting of AGREE II assessment was heterogeneous and generally of poor quality: overall assessment 1 (overall CPG quality) was rated in 11 appraisals (64.7%) and overall assessment 2 (recommendation for use) in four (23.5%). Inter-rater reliability was substantial/perfect in 78.3% of overlapping CPGs. The domains with most variability were Domain 6 (mean interquartile range [IQR] 38.6), Domain 5 (mean IQR 28.9), and Domain 2 (mean IQR 27.7).

CONCLUSIONS

More than one third of CPGs for LBP have been re-appraised in the last six years with CPGs quality confirmed in most assessments. Our findings suggest that before conducting a new appraisal, researchers should check systematic review registers for existing appraisals. Clinicians need to rely on updated CPGs of high quality and confirmed by perfect agreement in multiple appraisals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Protocol Registration OSF: https://osf.io/rz7nh/.

Instrumented Versus Noninstrumented Spinal Fusion for Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: A Systematic Review

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review compares radiographic and clinical outcomes between instrumented and noninstrumented posterolateral lumbar spine fusions for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

The optimal method of fusion for instability from degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis remains to be an area of debate amongst spine surgeons. There are no prior comprehensive systematic review of comparative studies that compares outcomes between instrumented and noninstrumented posterolateral spine fusions for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic review was registered with PROSPERO and performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines using the PubMed, SCOPUS, and Ovid MEDLINE databases. All level I-III comparative studies published in the English language investigating the clinical outcomes between instrumented and noninstrumented posterolateral spine fusions for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis were included.

RESULTS

Seven studies (672 patients, 274 noninstrumented, 398 instrumented) were analyzed. One randomized study was level I evidence, 2 randomized studies were level II, and 4 nonrandomized studies were level III. Mean follow-up ranged from 1.4 to 5.9 years. Instrumented patients had a higher rate of solid fusion (87.6% vs. 77.1%, P=0.023) and a lower rate of definitive pseudarthrosis (5.3% vs. 19.9%, P<0.001). However, there was no difference in overall functional improvement at final follow-up between the 2 treatment groups (75.0% vs. 81.7%, P=0.258). In addition, there was no difference in reoperation or complication rates.

CONCLUSIONS

For the treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis, there are significantly higher rates of fusion among patients undergoing instrumented posterolateral fusion compared with noninstrumented posterolateral fusion. However, there is no difference in overall functional improvement, pain-related outcome scores, reoperation rates, or complication rates between the 2 treatment groups.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III-systematic review of level I-III studies.

Comparison of decompression, decompression plus fusion, and decompression plus stabilization: a long-term follow-up of a prospective, randomized study

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Lumbar canal stenosis due to degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis is one of the most common indications for lumbar spinal surgery. However, from a long-term perspective, it is still unclear which of these procedures should be performed: decompression, decompression plus fusion, or decompression plus stabilization.

PURPOSE

This study aimed to present the long-term results of a randomized controlled trial of surgery for degenerative spondylolisthesis.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

This is a long-term follow-up of a previously reported randomized controlled trial.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Patients aged ≤75 years with single L4/5 level lumbar canal stenosis caused by degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis were enrolled at two hospitals from May 1, 2003, to April 30, 2012; the final follow-up was on May 20, 2021.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The following data were collected: modified Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score, visual analog scale (VAS) score for lower back pain, leg pain, and numbness, and scores from eight Short-Form 36 (SF-36) subscales preoperatively, 1 year postoperatively, 5 years postoperatively, and at the final follow-up.

METHODS

Patients were randomized to undergo decompression alone, decompression plus fusion, or decompression plus stabilization. The primary outcome measure was the change in VAS for lower back pain with secondary outcomes including the modified JOA score, VAS for leg pain, VAS for leg numbness, eight SF-36 subscale scores, and occurrence of reoperation at the last follow-up.

RESULTS

Among 85 patients who were randomized, 66 responded to the current survey. The mean follow-up period was 12.3 years. The VAS score for low back pain improvement was not significantly different between the decompression and fusion groups at the mean follow-up of 12.3 years. Of the 12 secondary outcomes, 8 showed no significant difference between decompression and fusion, 12 showed no significant difference between decompression and stabilization, and 10 showed no significant difference between fusion and stabilization.

CONCLUSIONS

Although additional instrumentation surgery did not significantly improve low back pain at the mean follow-up of 12.3 years compared with decompression alone, fusion surgery provided clinically meaningful improvements in patient-reported vitality, social functioning, role limitations due to personal or emotional problems, and mental health compared with decompression alone.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

UMIN000028114.