Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis: comparative effectiveness and cost-utility analysis

Comparison of midline lumbar interbody fusion and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for treatment of lumbar degeneration disease

Midline lumbar interbody fusion (MIDLIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) are two minimally invasive lumbar fusion methods that have gained popularity in the past two decades. MIDLIF involves the use of cortical bone trajectory screws, whereas MIS-TLIF uses traditional pedicle screws. However, there is a significant lack of research directly examining the clinical efficacy of these two methods in treating single-segment lumbar degenerative diseases. Hence, the objective of our retrospective study is to assess and contrast the surgical and clinical results of MIDLIF and MIS-TLIF. The study population comprised 133 patients diagnosed with single-segment lumbar degenerative disease that received treatment using either MIDLIF (n = 65) or MIS-TLIF (n = 68) in our department from January 2017 to January 2019. The fusion rates for MIDLIF were consistently lower than MID-TLIF at all post-operative time periods of follow-up, however, the differences between the two groups were not statistically significant. The 1-year fusion rates were 81.5% (MIDLIF) and 83.8% (MIS-TLIF) (P = 0.728), and the 2-year fusion rates were 87.7% (MIDLIF) and 91.2% (MIS-TLIF) (P = 0.513). The final follow-up fusion rates were 93.8% (MIDLIF) and 95.6% (MIS-TLIF) (P = 0.653). MIDLIF had several advantages over MIS-TLIF, including a shorter operative time (135.2 ± 15.70 vs. 160.1 ± 17.2 min, P < 0.001), decreased intraoperative blood loss (147.9 ± 36.4 vs. 169.5 ± 24.7 mL, P < 0.001), and a shorter length of hospital stay (10.8 ± 3.1 vs. 12.4 ± 4.1d; P = 0.014). No significant differences were seen between the groups in terms of the postoperative day of ambulation, Oswestry dysfunction index (ODI) scores, and visual analog scale (VAS) scores for leg and lower back pain (P > 0.05). Although not significant (P = 0.707), MIDLIF (13.8%) had fewer overall complications than MIS-TLIF (16.2%). Therefore, compared to MIS-TLIF, MIDLIF provides perioperative benefits while achieving the same outcomes as MIS-TLIF in terms of fusion rate, pain relief, functional improvement, and complication rate.

Minimally Invasive Versus Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Obese Patients : A Propensity Score-Matched Study

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective review of prospectively collected data.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of obese patients undergoing minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) and open TLIF.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

The perioperative benefits of minimally invasive surgery in obese patients have been described. However, there is limited literature on the patient-reported outcomes (PROs), satisfaction and return to work following MIS-TLIF and open TLIF in this subgroup of patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Obese patients (BMI ≥30.0 kg/m 2 ) who underwent a primary, one-level to two-level open and MIS-TLIF were stratified and matched using propensity scoring. Operative time, length of stay, and perioperative outcomes were recorded. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) including Oswestry disability index, Short Form-36 physical component score, mental component score, visual analogue scale for back pain and leg pain were compared at each postoperative time point. Achievement of minimal clinically important difference (MCID), patient satisfaction and return to work were also assessed. Revision procedures were recorded at mean 10±3.3 years follow-up.

RESULTS

In total, 236 obese patients were included: 118 open TLIF and 118 MIS-TLIF. Length of stay was longer in the open TLIF cohort and there was a trend toward a higher complication rate. However, there was no difference in operative time, transfusions, or readmissions. Patients who underwent open TLIF reported worse ODI ( P =0.043) and VAS leg pain at two years, although the latter did not reach statistical significance ( P =0.095). Achievement of MCID for each PRO, patient satisfaction, and return to work were also comparable.

CONCLUSIONS

Obese patients who underwent MIS-TLIF had a shorter length of stay and improved functional disability at two years compared those who underwent open TLIF. However, a similar proportion achieved a clinical meaningful improvement. Patient satisfaction and return to work were also comparable at two years.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Clinical Utility and Patient Compliance With Mobile Applications for Home-Based Rehabilitation Following Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective chart review.

OBJECTIVES

Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) via open or minimally invasive (MI) techniques is commonly performed. Mobile applications for home-based therapy programs have grown in popularity. The purpose of this study was to (1) compare patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) between postoperative patients who were the most and least compliant in using the mobile-based rehabilitation programs, (2) compare PROMs between open vs MI-TLIF cohorts, and (3) quantify overall compliance rates of home-based rehabilitation programs.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was performed. Patients were automatically enrolled in the rehabilitation program. Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores were collected. Patients were separated into two study groups. Compliance rate was calculated as the difference between the number of active participants at the preoperative phase and final follow-up.

RESULTS

220 patients were included. Average follow-up time was 23.2 months. No difference was found in the change in (∆) PROMIS scores (P = 0.261) or ∆ODI scores (P = 0.690) regardless of patient compliance. No difference was found in outcome scores between open vs MI-TLIF techniques stratified by download compliance (downloaded, DL+; did not download, DL-) and phone reminder compliance (set reminder, R+; did not set reminder, R-) postoperatively. Both cohorts demonstrated clinical improvement exceeding minimal clinically important difference at final follow-up. Overall patient compliance was 71% at final postoperative follow up.

CONCLUSION

Despite high long-term compliance and rising popularity, mobile applications for home-based postoperative rehabilitation programs have low clinical utility in patients undergoing TLIF.

Prospective Assessment of Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (TLIF) in Spondylolisthesis: A Radiological and Functional Outcome Study in an Indian Population

INTRODUCTION

 Spondylolisthesis is a common spinal condition in which one vertebra slips over another, leading to pain and disability. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) has emerged as a surgical option for addressing spondylolisthesis; however, limited research exists, especially in the Indian context, evaluating its radiological and functional outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

 The study aimed to evaluate the radiological and functional outcomes of TLIF in spondylolisthesis using standardized scoring systems, to evaluate the sagittal balance of the spine radiologically in patients who have undergone TLIF for spondylolisthesis, and to evaluate the correlation between the functional and radiological outcomes after TLIF.

METHODS

 This prospective observational study included spondylolisthesis patients undergoing TLIF at SRM Medical College Hospital and Research Centre from August 2022 to August 2024. Criteria included Meyerding grade 1-4 spondylolisthesis, single-segment fusion, and willingness for 12-month follow-up.

RESULTS

 Forty-five patients were included with age 36.6 ± 12.2 years, with 73.3% being female. L4-L5 is the most common level affected in 21 patients (46.7%). Significant improvements were observed in pelvic tilt 19.07 ± 2.05, sacral slope 30.6 ± 4.4, segmental lordosis 18.4 ± 1.4, lumbar lordosis 57.1 ± 1.8, sagittal vertical axis (SVA) 2.5 ± 0.3, Visual Analog Scale for pain 0.4 ± 0.5, and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores 5.23 ± 2.6 postoperatively (p < 0.05). At one-year follow-up, 84.4% of patients had good-to-excellent outcomes, and 44.4% had definitive fusion according to modified Lee criteria. However, there was no correlation between ODI score and grade of listhesis, pelvic incidence (PI), or SVA of the spine (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

 This study provides valuable insights into the effectiveness of TLIF surgery in addressing spondylolisthesis, both in terms of radiological and functional outcomes. However, there was no correlation between improvement in functional and radiological parameters (PI vs. ODI, SVA vs. ODI). TLIF appears to offer significant improvements in patient well-being and quality of life. These findings contribute to understanding TLIF's suitability as a treatment for spondylolisthesis and can inform clinical practice, ultimately benefiting patients suffering from this condition.

Evolution of Titanium Interbody Cages and Current Uses of 3D Printed Titanium in Spine Fusion Surgery

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To summarize the history of titanium implants in spine fusion surgery and its evolution over time.

RECENT FINDINGS

Titanium interbody cages used in spine fusion surgery have evolved from solid metal blocks to porous structures with varying shapes and sizes in order to provide stability while minimizing adverse side effects. Advancements in technology, especially 3D printing, have allowed for the creation of highly customizable spinal implants to fit patient specific needs. Recent evidence suggests that customizing shape and density of the implants may improve patient outcomes compared to current industry standards. Future work is warranted to determine the practical feasibility and long-term clinical outcomes of patients using 3D printed spine fusion implants. Outcomes in spine fusion surgery have improved greatly due to technological advancements. 3D printed spinal implants, in particular, may improve outcomes in patients undergoing spine fusion surgery when compared to current industry standards. Long term follow up and direct comparison between implant characteristics is required for the adoption of 3D printed implants as the standard of care.

How Do the True Intraoperative Costs of Endoscopic Diskectomy Compare With Microdiskectomy for Lumbar Disk Herniations? A Time-Driven Activity-Based Cost Analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Endoscopic lumbar diskectomy (ED) is a minimally invasive option for addressing lumbar disk herniations. With the introduction of value-based care systems, assessing the true cost of certain procedures is critical when creating reimbursement models and comparing procedures. Here, we compared the costs of performing a microdiskectomy (MD) and ED using time-driven activity-based costing.

METHODS

Total cost for the intraoperative episode was calculated using time-driven activity-based costing methodology. Individual costs were obtained by direct observation and electronic medical records and through querying multiple departments (business operations, sterile processing, plant operations, and pharmacy). Timestamps for all involved personnel and material resources were documented. A retrospective analysis was performed on 202 patients who underwent lumbar diskectomy through either MD (n = 167) or ED (n = 35) from 2018 to 2022. Personnel cost was calculated by multiplying the cost per unit time for each personnel type by the length of time spent in the operating room. Supply cost was calculated by aggregating the cost of all individual supplies, from medications to consumables to surgical trays, used during the case. Univariate and multivariable regression analyses were performed comparing the costs between these procedures.

RESULTS

The average intraoperative cost per case for ED and MD was $3915 ± $1025 and $3162 ± $954, respectively. Multivariable regression analysis revealed that ED had higher total cost (β-coefficient: $912 ± $281, P = <.01) and supply cost (β-coefficient: $474 ± $155, P = <.01) than MD. When accounting for surgeon as a covariate, however, total cost (P = .478) and supply cost (P = .468) differences between ED and MD were negligible.

CONCLUSION

ED has shown to be a better value option in addressing lumbar disk herniations, mostly because of advantages in perioperative care. Here, we show that when correcting for surgeon-level effects, the cost between the two procedures is statistically insignificant, reaffirming the value provided by ED.

Clinical efficacy and complications of MIS-TLIF and TLIF in the treatment of upper lumbar disc herniation: a comparative study

BACKGROUND

The optimal treatment modality for upper lumbar disc herniation remains unclear. Herein, we compared the clinical efficacy and application value of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) for upper lumbar disc herniation. We aimed to provide new evidence to guide surgical decisions for treating this condition.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of 81 patients with upper lumbar disc herniation admitted between January 2017 and July 2018, including 41 and 40 patients who underwent MIS-TLIF and TLIF, respectively. Demographic characteristics, preoperative functional scores, perioperative indicators, and postoperative complications were compared. We performed consecutive comparisons of visual analog scale (VAS) scores of the lumbar and leg regions, Oswestry disability index (ODI), Japanese Orthopaedic Association scores (JOA), and MacNab scores at the final follow-up, to assess clinical outcomes 5 years postoperatively.

RESULTS

VAS scores of the back and legs were significantly lower in the MIS-TLIF than the TLIF group at 3 months and 1 year postoperatively (P < 0.05). Intraoperative bleeding and postoperative hospitalization time were significantly lower, and the time to return to work/normal life was shorter in the MIS-TLIF than in the TLIF group (P < 0.05). The differences in JOA scores and ODI scores between the two groups at 3 months, 1 year, and 3 years postoperatively were statistically significant (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The early clinical efficacy of MIS-TLIF was superior to that of TLIF, but no differences were found in mid-term clinical efficacy. Further, MIS-TLIF has the advantages of fewer medical injuries, shorter hospitalization times, and faster postoperative functional recovery.

Review of mechanisms of expandable spine surgery devices

INTRODUCTION

Expandable devices such as interbody cages, vertebral body reconstruction cages, and intravertebral body expansion devices are frequently utilized in spine surgery. Since the introduction of expandable implants in the early 2000s, the variety of mechanisms that drive expansion and implant materials have steadily increased. By examining expandable devices that have achieved commercial success and exploring emerging innovations, we aim to offer an in-depth evaluation of the different types of expandable cages used in spine surgery and the underlying mechanisms that drive their functionality.

AREAS COVERED

We performed a review of expandable spinal implants and devices by querying the National Library of Medicine MEDLINE database and Google Patents database from 1933 to 2024. Five major types of mechanical jacks that drive expansion were identified: scissor, pneumatic, screw, ratchet, and insertion-expansion.

EXPERT OPINION

We identified a trend of screw jack mechanism being the predominant machinery in vertebral body reconstruction cages and scissor jack mechanism predominating in interbody cages. Pneumatic jacks were most commonly found in kyphoplasty devices. Critically reviewing the mechanisms of expansion and identifying trends among effective and successful cages allows both surgeons and medical device companies to properly identify future areas of development.

A Review of Cognitive Support Systems in the Operating Room

BACKGROUND

In recent years, numerous innovative yet challenging surgeries, such as minimally invasive procedures, have introduced an overwhelming amount of new technologies, increasing the cognitive load for surgeons and potentially diluting their attention. Cognitive support technologies (CSTs) have been in development to reduce surgeons' cognitive load and minimize errors. Despite its huge demands, it still lacks a systematic review.

METHODS

Literature was searched up until May 21st, 2021. Pubmed, Web of Science, and IEEExplore. Studies that aimed at reducing the cognitive load of surgeons were included. Additionally, studies that contained an experimental trial with real patients and real surgeons were prioritized, although phantom and animal studies were also included. Major outcomes that were assessed included surgical error, anatomical localization accuracy, total procedural time, and patient outcome.

RESULTS

A total of 37 studies were included. Overall, the implementation of CSTs had better surgical performance than the traditional methods. Most studies reported decreased error rate and increased efficiency. In terms of accuracy, most CSTs had over 90% accuracy in identifying anatomical markers with an error margin below 5 mm. Most studies reported a decrease in surgical time, although some were statistically insignificant.

DISCUSSION

CSTs have been shown to reduce the mental workload of surgeons. However, the limited ergonomic design of current CSTs has hindered their widespread use in the clinical setting. Overall, more clinical data on actual patients is needed to provide concrete evidence before the ubiquitous implementation of CSTs.

Percutaneous microchannel unilateral approach bilateral micro decompression for adjacent segmental degeneration after lumbar fusion at 10 years: a case report and review of literature

Background

Adjacent segmental degeneration after lumbar fusion is one of the common long-term complications after lumbar fusion. With the continuous development of adjacent segmental degeneration, patients who fail conservative treatment often need reoperation to relieve symptoms. In recent years, the technique of bilateral microdecompression through unilateral approach under microchannel has been widely used in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases. However, the efficacy of this procedure for adjacent-segment degeneration after lumbar fusion has not been established. Here, we report a case of bilateral microscopic decompression via a unilateral approach through a microchannel in a patient with adjacent segmental degeneration after lumbar fusion.

Case report

A 70-year-old male patient was admitted to hospital because of lumbago accompanied by left lower extremity pain, numbness and weakness for 2 years, which aggravated for 2 months. Ten years ago, he underwent PLIF for lumbar spinal stenosis, and recovered well after the operation. According to imaging data and physical examination, the diagnosis was adjacent segmental degeneration after lumbar fusion. Bilateral microdecompression was performed through a unilateral approach under a microchannel. Good clinical outcomes was observed through 1-year postoperative follow-up.

Conclusions

This report reports the successful treatment of a patient with ASD 10 years after lumbar fusion. Bilateral microdecompression via a unilateral approach under a microchannel is a safe and effective method for the treatment of ASD after lumbar fusion with good surgical outcomes.

An Integrated 3-Dimentional Navigation System Increases the Accuracy, Efficiency, and Safety of Percutaneous Thoracolumbar Pedicle Screw Placement in Minimally Invasive Approaches: A Randomized Cadaveric Study

STUDY DESIGN

Cadaveric study.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to compare a novel, integrated 3D navigational system (NAV) and conventional fluoroscopy in the accuracy, efficiency, and radiation exposure of thoracolumbar percutaneous pedicle screw (PPS) placement.

METHODS

Twelve skeletally mature cadaveric specimens were obtained for twelve individual surgeons. Each participant placed bilateral PS at 11 segments, from T8 to S1. Prior to insertion, surgeons were randomized to the sequence of techniques and the side (left or right). Following placement, a CT scan of the spine was obtained for each cadaver, and an independent reviewer assessed the accuracy of screw placement using the Gertzbein grading system. Outcome metrics of interest included a comparison of breach incidence/severity, screw placement time, total procedure time, and radiation exposure between the techniques. Bivariate statistics were employed to compare outcomes at each level.

RESULTS

A total of 262 screws (131 using each technique) were placed. The incidence of cortical breaches was significantly lower with NAV compared to FG (9% vs 18%; P = .048). Of breaches with NAV, 25% were graded as moderate or severe compared to 39% in the FG subgroup (P = .034). Median time for screw placement was significantly lower with NAV (2.7 vs 4.1 min/screw; P = .012), exclusive of registration time. Cumulative radiation exposure to the surgeon was significantly lower for NAV-guided placement (9.4 vs 134 μGy, P = .02).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of NAV significantly decreased the incidence of cortical breaches, the severity of screw breeches, screw placement time, and radiation exposure to the surgeon when compared to traditional FG.

State-of-the-art Applications of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Spinal Care

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) assign objective measures to patient's subjective experiences of health, pain, disability, function, and quality of life. PROMs can be useful for providers in shared decision making, outcome assessment, and indicating patients for surgery. In this article, we provide an overview of the legacy PROMs used in spinal care, recent advancements in patient-reported outcomes, and future directions in PROMs. Recent advances in patient-reported outcome assessments have included standardization of measurement tools, integration of data collection into workflow, and applications of outcome measures in predictive models and decision-making tools. Continual appraisal of instruments and incorporation into artificial intelligence and machine learning analytics will continue to augment the delivery of high-value spinal care.

Technical Feasibility and Early Clinical Outcome of Biportal Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using Larger Cage

BACKGROUND

Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with biportal endoscopic guidance (BE-TLIF) has been previously reported with promising clinical results. However, complications such as delayed union or subsidence occurred as with open surgery. We assumed using larger cages would result in less occurrence of such complications. We aimed to analyze the clinical outcome and technical feasibility of BE-TLIF using larger cages, initially designed for oblique lumbar interbody fusion.

METHODS

We enrolled cases that underwent single-level BE-TLIF between January 2021 and January 2022. Polyetheretherketone cages that were larger than the conventional size were used. Diagnoses were degenerative spondylolisthesis or isthmic spondylolisthesis. Visual analog scale scores of the back and leg and Oswestry Disability Index were collected perioperatively. Modified Macnab criteria were used to evaluate the patients at the final follow-up. Radiologic outcome of interbody fusion rate and perioperative complications were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 35 cases were included in this study. The mean age was 67.5 ± 8.4 and consisted of 13 male patients, and the mean follow-up duration was 18.3 ± 3.7 months. The majority (32/35, 91.3%) of the index level was located within the lower lumbar region, L4-S1. Oswestry Disability Index scores improved from 65.4 ± 5.4 preoperatively to 15.4 ± 6.1 at the final follow-up (P < 0.001). Visual analog scale scores of the leg decreased from 7.9 ± 1.5 to 1.7 ± 1.5 at the final follow-up (P < 0.001). Per the modified Macnab criteria on the final follow-up, 94% of the patients reported good/excellent. Most (94.2%) of the patients showed fusion grade I and II at the 1-year follow-up. No patient showed subsidence or other postoperative complication.

CONCLUSIONS

BE-TLIF using a larger cage was safely performed without risk of subsidence during the 1-year follow-up. A cage with a larger footprint may be advantageous in BE-TLIF in the aspect of interbody fusion and subsidence.

Preoperative Low Back Pain Affects Postoperative Patient Satisfaction Following Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgery

STUDY DESIGN

A single-center retrospective study.

PURPOSE

To research the predictive factors associated with postoperative patient satisfaction 1 year after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF), a minimally invasive procedure for lumbar degenerative disease.

OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE

There have been reports of numerous variables influencing patient satisfaction with lumbar surgery; however, there have been few investigations on MIS are limited.

METHODS

This study included 229 patients (107 men and 122 women; mean age, 68.9 years) who received one or two levels of MISTLIF, and the patient's age, gender, disease, paralysis, preoperative physical functions, duration of symptom(s), and surgery-associated factors (waiting for surgery, number of surgical levels, surgical time, and intraoperative blood loss) were studied. Radiographic characteristics and clinical outcomes such as Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores and Visual Analog Scale (VAS; 0-100) ODI scores for low back pain, leg pain, and numbness were studied. One year following surgery, patient satisfaction (defined as satisfaction for surgery and for present condition; 0-100) was assessed using VAS and its relationships with investigation factors were examined.

RESULTS

The mean VAS scores of satisfaction for surgery and for present condition were 88.6 and 84.2, respectively. The results of multiple regression analysis showed that preoperative adverse factors of satisfaction for surgery were being elderly (β =-0.17, p =0.023), high preoperative low back pain VAS scores (β =-0.15, p =0.020), and postoperative adverse factors were high postoperative ODI scores (β =-0.43, p <0.001). In addition, the preoperative adverse factor of satisfaction for present condition was high preoperative low back pain VAS scores (β =-0.21, p =0.002), and postoperative adverse factors were high postoperative ODI scores (β =-0.45, p <0.001) and high postoperative low back pain VAS scores (β =-0.26, p =0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

According to this study, significant preoperative low back pain and high postoperative ODI score after surgery are linked to patient unhappiness.

Latest Developments in Minimally Invasive Spinal Treatment in Slovakia and Its Comparison with an Open Approach for the Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Diseases

The study describes the benefits of MIS-TLIF (minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion) and compares them with OTLIF (open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion). It compares blood loss, length of hospitalization stays (LOS), operation time, and return of the patient to the environment. A total of 250 adults (109 males and 141 females), mean age 59.5 ± 12.6, who underwent MIS-TLIF in the Neurosurgery Clinic (NSC) Ruzomberok, Slovakia, because of lumbar degenerative diseases (LDD), participated in this retrospective study. Data were obtained from the patients' medical records and from the standardized Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) index questionnaire. To compare ODI in our study sample, we used the Student's Paired Sample Test. To compare the MIS-TLIF and OTLIF approaches, a meta-analysis was conducted. Confidence intervals were 95% CI. The test of homogeneity (Chi-square (Q)) and the degree of heterogeneity (I² test) among the included studies were used. Statistical analyses were two-sided (α = 0.05). All monitored parameters were significantly better in MIS-TLIF group: blood loss (p < 0.001), operation time (p < 0.001), and ODI changes (p < 0.001). LOS (p < 0.042) were close to the significance level. ODI in the study sample decreased by 33.44% points after MIS-TLIF, and it significantly increased as well (p < 0.001). The percentage of patients who were satisfied with the surgery they underwent was 84.8%. The study confirmed that the MIS-TLIF method is in general gentler for the patient and allows the faster regeneration of patient's health status compared to OTLIF.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic literature review.

DATA SOURCES

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

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

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

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) reduces total lifetime cost compared with posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) for single-level lumbar spinal fusion surgery: a cost-utility analysis in Thailand

BACKGROUND

Lumbar interbody fusion techniques treat degenerative lumbar diseases effectively. Minimally invasive lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) decreases soft tissue disruption and accelerates recovery better than standard open posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). However, the material cost of LLIF is high, especially in Thailand. The cost-effectiveness of LLIF and PLIF in developing countries is unclear. This study compared the cost-utility and clinical outcomes of LLIF and PLIF in Thailand.

METHODS

Data from patients with lumbar spondylosis who underwent single-level LLIF and PLIF between 2014 and 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. Preoperative and 1-year follow-up EuroQol-5D-5L and healthcare costs were collected. A cost-utility analysis with a lifetime time horizon was performed using a societal perspective. Outcomes are reported as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. A Thai willingness-to-pay threshold of 5003 US dollars (USD) per QALY gained was used.

RESULTS

The 136 enrolled patients had a mean age of 62.26 ± 11.66 years. Fifty-nine patients underwent LLIF, while 77 underwent PLIF. The PLIF group experienced greater estimated blood loss (458.96 vs 167.03 ml; P < 0.001), but the LLIF group had a longer operative time (222.80 vs 194.62 min; P = 0.007). One year postoperatively, the groups' Oswestry Disability Index and EuroQol-Visual Analog Scale scores were improved without statistical significance. The PLIF group had a significantly better utility score than the LLIF group (0.89 vs 0.84; P = 0.023). LLIF's total lifetime cost was less than that of PLIF (30,124 and 33,003 USD). Relative to PLIF, LLIF was not cost-effective according to the Thai willingness-to-pay threshold, with an ICER of 19,359 USD per QALY gained.

CONCLUSIONS

LLIF demonstrated lower total lifetime cost from a societal perspective. Regard to our data, at the 1-year follow-up, the improvement in patient quality of life was less with LLIF than with PLIF. Additionally, economic evaluation modeling based on the context of Thailand showed that LLIF was not cost-effective compared with PLIF. A strategy that facilitates the selection of patients for LLIF is required to optimize patient benefits.

Minimally Invasive Spinal Fusion Using Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Instrumentation Can Provide a Better Health-Related QOL in Early Stage Than Conventional Methods in the Treatment of Single-Level Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Diseases

Purpose

To investigate whether the minimally invasive spinal fusion can provide the better outcome than conventional fusion surgery in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal diseases.

Patients and Methods

One hundred and thirteen patients who had undergone single-level fusion surgery for degenerative lumbar spinal diseases were examined with a minimum of one-year follow-up. There were 56 men and 57 women with a median age of 70s ranging 47-88. The following three-types of fusion surgery were performed; minimally invasive transforaminal interbody fusion after microscopic decompression through a unilateral approach with percutaneous pedicle screwing (MTLIF), transforaminal interbody fusion after microscopic decompression through a unilateral approach (TLIF), and posterior lumbar interbody fusion with posterolateral fusion after open decompression through a bilateral approach (PLIF). The purpose for limiting on single level degenerative spinal disease was that it would be easy to compare the surgical outcomes among the three groups.

Results

There were no statistically significant differences among three groups in terms of VAS scores, RDQ scores, and all of the domains in the JOABPEQ scores at the baseline. The JOABPEQ score for pain-related disorders at 6 months after surgery was statistically significantly higher in MTLIF group than the other two groups (P = 0.023). There were no statistically significant differences in the scores of the other outcome measures among three groups in whole follow-up period.

Conclusion

The current study demonstrated that the JOABPEQ score for pain-related disorders at 6 months postoperatively was significantly better in MTLIF group than in the other groups. Since lumbar degenerative diseases mostly consisted in elderly patients, less invasive surgeries are desirable. MTLIF resulted in a better health-related QOL at 6 months after surgery, and its outcomes at the final follow-up were non-numerical inferiority. The results strongly indicate that MTLIF is desirable surgery especially for elderly patients with degenerative spinal diseases.

Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for grade I lumbar spondylolisthesis: 5-year follow-up from the prospective multicenter Quality Outcomes Database registry

OBJECTIVE

Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) has been used to treat degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis and is associated with expedited recovery, reduced operative blood loss, and shorter hospitalizations compared to those with traditional open TLIF. However, the impact of MI-TLIF on long-term patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is less clear. Here, the authors compare the outcomes of MI-TLIF to those of traditional open TLIF for grade I degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis at 60 months postoperatively.

METHODS

The authors utilized the prospective Quality Outcomes Database registry and queried for patients with grade I degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis who had undergone single-segment surgery via an MI or open TLIF method. PROs were compared 60 months postoperatively. The primary outcome was the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). The secondary outcomes included the numeric rating scale (NRS) for back pain (NRS-BP), NRS for leg pain (NRS-LP), EQ-5D, North American Spine Society (NASS) satisfaction, and cumulative reoperation rate. Multivariable models were constructed to assess the impact of MI-TLIF on PROs, adjusting for variables reaching p < 0.20 on univariable analyses and respective baseline PRO values.

RESULTS

The study included 297 patients, 72 (24.2%) of whom had undergone MI-TLIF and 225 (75.8%) of whom had undergone open TLIF. The 60-month follow-up rates were similar for the two cohorts (86.1% vs 75.6%, respectively; p = 0.06). Patients did not differ significantly at baseline for ODI, NRS-BP, NRS-LP, or EQ-5D (p > 0.05 for all). Perioperatively, MI-TLIF was associated with less blood loss (108.8 ± 85.6 vs 299.6 ± 242.2 ml, p < 0.001) and longer operations (228.2 ± 111.5 vs 189.6 ± 66.5 minutes, p < 0.001) but had similar lengths of hospitalizations (MI-TLIF 2.9 ± 1.8 vs open TLIF 3.3 ± 1.6 days, p = 0.08). Discharge disposition to home or home health was similar (MI-TLIF 93.1% vs open TLIF 91.1%, p = 0.60). Both cohorts improved significantly from baseline for the 60-month ODI, NRS-BP, NRS-LP, and EQ-5D (p < 0.001 for all comparisons). In adjusted analyses, MI-TLIF, compared to open TLIF, was associated with similar 60-month ODI, ODI change, odds of reaching ODI minimum clinically important difference, NRS-BP, NRS-BP change, NRS-LP, NRS-LP change, EQ-5D, EQ-5D change, and NASS satisfaction (adjusted p > 0.05 for all). The 60-month reoperation rates did not differ significantly (MI-TLIF 5.6% vs open TLIF 11.6%, p = 0.14).

CONCLUSIONS

For symptomatic, single-level grade I degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis, MI-TLIF was associated with decreased blood loss perioperatively, but there was no difference in 60-month outcomes for disability, back pain, leg pain, quality of life, or satisfaction between MI and open TLIF. There was no difference in cumulative reoperation rates between the two procedures. These results suggest that in appropriately selected patients, either procedure may be employed depending on patient and surgeon preferences.

Influence of the Preoperative Duration of Symptoms on Patients' Clinical Outcomes after Minimally Invasive Surgery-Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Diseases

Background and Objectives: The impact of the duration of symptoms (DOS) on postoperative clinical outcomes of patients with degenerative lumbar spinal diseases is important for determining the optimal timing of surgical intervention; however, the timing remains controversial. This prospective case−control study aimed to investigate the influence of the preoperative DOS on surgical outcomes in minimally invasive surgery-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF). Materials and Methods: Patients who underwent single-level TLIF for lumbar degenerative diseases between 2017 and 2018 were reviewed. Only patients with full clinical data during the 1-year follow-up period were included. The patients were divided into two groups (DOS < 12 months, group S; DOS ≥ 12 months, group L). The clinical outcomes, including the Oswestry disability index (ODI) and visual analog scale (VAS) for lower back pain, leg pain, and numbness, were investigated preoperatively and at 1, 3, and 6 months, as well as 1 year, after surgery. Furthermore, postoperative patient satisfaction 1 year after surgery was also surveyed. Results: A total of 163 patients were assessed: 60 in group S and 103 in group L. No differences in baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes were found. The ODI and VAS significantly improved from the baseline to each follow-up period (all p < 0.01). Group S had significantly lower ODI scores at 3 months (p = 0.019) and 6 months (p = 0.022). In addition, group S had significantly lower VAS scores for leg pain at 3 months (p = 0.027). In a comparison between both groups, only the patients with cauda equina symptoms showed that ODI and leg pain VAS scores at 3 months after surgery were significantly lower in group S (19.9 ± 9.1 vs. 14.1 ± 12.5; p = 0.037, 7.4 ± 13.9 vs. 14.7 ± 23.1; p = 0.032, respectively). However, the clinical outcomes were not significantly different between both groups 1 year after surgery. Patient satisfaction was also not significantly different between both groups. Conclusions: Patients with a shorter DOS tended to have a significantly slower recovery; however, clinical outcomes 1 year after surgery were good, regardless of the DOS.

Recovery Kinetics After Commonly Performed Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery Procedures

STUDY DESIGN

Single-center, multisurgeon, retrospective review.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the timing of return to commonly performed activities following minimally invasive spine surgery. Identify preoperative factors associated with these outcomes.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Studies have reported return to activities with open techniques, but the precise timing of when patients return to these activities after minimally invasive surgery remains uncertain.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients who underwent either minimally invasive lumbar laminectomy (MI-L) or minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) were included. Patient-reported outcome measures, return to drive, return to work, and discontinuation of opioids data were reviewed. Regression was conducted to identify factors associated with return to driving by 15 days, return to work by 30 days, and for discontinuing opioids by 15 days. A composite group analysis was also performed for patients who returned to all three activities by 30 days.

RESULTS

In total, 123 MI-L patients and 107 MI-TLIF patients were included. Overall, 88.8% of MI-L patients and 96.4% of MI-TLIF patients returned to driving in 11 and 18.5 days, respectively. In all, 91.9% of MI-L patients and 85.7% of MI-TLIF patients returned to work in 14 and 25 days. In all, 88.7% of MI-L patients and 92.6% of MI-TLIF patients discontinued opioids in a median of seven and 11 days. Overall, 96.2% of MI-L patients and 100% of MI-TLIF patients returned to all three activities, with a median of 27 and 31 days, respectively. Male sex [odds ratio (OR)=3.57] and preoperative 12-Item Short Form Physical Component Score (OR=1.08) are associated with return to driving by 15 days. Male sex (OR=3.23) and preoperative 12-Item Short Form Physical Component Score (OR=1.07) are associated with return to work by 30 days. Preoperative Visual Analog Scale back was associated with decreased odds of discontinuing opioids by 15 days (OR=0.84).

CONCLUSION

Most patients return to activity following MI-L and MI-TLIF. These findings serve as an important compass for preoperative counseling.

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.

OLIF versus MI-TLIF for patients with degenerative lumbar disease: Is one procedure superior to the other? A systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To compare the effectiveness and safety of oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) for degenerative lumbar disease.

METHODS

We searched relevant studies in Embase, PubMed, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases comprehensively from inception to March 2022. The data were extracted from included studies, including operation indications, radiographic parameters, and clinical outcomes. Random or fixed-effects models were used in all meta-analyses according to the between-study heterogeneity.

RESULTS

In total, 30 studies, including 2,125 patients, were included in this meta-analysis. Our study found similar disk height, length of hospital stay, visual analog scale (VAS), and Oswestry disability index(ODI) between the two groups. However, the OLIF showed an advantage in restoring lumbar lordotic angle compared with MI-TLIF, with the pooled mean change of 17.73° and 2.61°, respectively. Additionally, the operative time and blood loss in the OLIF group appeared to be less compared with the MI-TLIF group. Regarding complications, the rates of the two groups were similar (OLIF 14.0% vs. MI-TLIF 10.0%), but the major complications that occurred in these two procedures differed significantly.

CONCLUSION

The results of disk height, length of hospital stay, VAS, and ODI between the OLIF and MI-TLIF groups were similar. And the OLIF was superior in restoring lumbar lordotic angle, operative time, and blood loss. However, the OLIF group's complication rate was higher, although not significantly, than that in the MI-TLIF group.

Surgical outcomes of patients who fail to reach minimal clinically important differences: comparison of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

OBJECTIVE

Treatment of degenerative lumbar diseases has been shown to be clinically effective with open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (O-TLIF) or minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF). Despite this, a substantial proportion of patients do not meet minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) in patient-reported outcomes (PROs). The objectives of this study were to compare the proportions of patients who did not meet MCIDs after O-TLIF and MIS-TLIF and to determine potential clinical factors associated with failure to achieve MCID.

METHODS

The authors performed a retrospective analysis of consecutive patients who underwent O-TLIF or MIS-TLIF for lumbar degenerative disorders and had been prospectively enrolled in the Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network. The authors analyzed the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores, physical and mental component summary scores of SF-12, numeric rating scale (NRS) scores for leg and back pain, and EQ-5D scores of the patients in each group who did not meet the MCID of ODI at 2 years postoperatively.

RESULTS

In this study, 38.8% (137 of 353) of patients in the O-TLIF cohort and 41.8% (51 of 122) of patients in the MIS-TLIF cohort did not meet the MCID of ODI at 2 years postoperatively (p = 0.59). Demographic variables and baseline PROs were similar between groups. There were improvements across the PROs of both groups through 2 years, and there were no differences in any PROs between the O-TLIF and MIS-TLIF cohorts. Multivariable logistic regression analysis demonstrated that higher baseline leg pain score (p = 0.017) and a diagnosis of spondylolisthesis (p = 0.0053) or degenerative disc disease (p = 0.022) were associated with achieving the MCID at 2 years after O-TLIF, whereas higher baseline leg pain score was associated with reaching the MCID after MIS-TLIF (p = 0.038).

CONCLUSIONS

Similar proportions of patients failed to reach the MCID of ODI at 2 years after O-TLIF or MIS-TLIF. Higher baseline leg pain score was predictive of achieving the MCID in both cohorts, whereas a diagnosis of spondylolisthesis or degenerative disc disease was predictive of reaching the MCID after O-TLIF. These data provide novel insights for patient counseling and suggest that either MIS-TLIF or O-TLIF does not overcome specific patient factors to mitigate clinical success or failure in terms of the intermediate-term PROs associated with 1- to 2-level lumbar fusion surgical procedures for degenerative pathologies.

One-level open vs. minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review and advanced meta-analytic assessment of prospective studies with at least two years follow-up

PURPOSE

To determine whether the open or the minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (O-TLIF, MI-TLIF) is the favored treatment, we provide first meta-analyses using prospective studies with at least two years follow-up only and present the clinical relevance of statistical results for the first time.

METHODS

After a systematic review of six databases, we conducted 10 meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 10 meta-analyses of eligible prospective studies (EPSs) to compare fusion rate, patient-reported outcome measures (back pain (B-VAS), leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI)), for the first time safety outcome measures as operative and postoperative complications per case, and the perioperative outcome measures estimated blood loss (EBL), operation time and length of hospital stay (LOS). The clinical relevance was assessed by overall effect sizes (OESs) of statistically significant meta-analytic results.

RESULTS

In our meta-analyses of RCTs, MI-TLIF is statistically significantly superior in ODI, EBL and LOS, with clinically meaningful OESs only in EBL and LOS. In meta-analyses of EPSs, MI-TLIF is statistically significantly superior in B-VAS, postoperative complications per case, EBL and LOS, all with clinically meaningful OESs except for B-VAS. The meta-analyses of remaining outcome measures present statistically nonsignificant results. In a descriptive analysis of complications, postoperative wound infections predominate in O-TLIF and hardware malposition in MI-TLIF.

CONCLUSION

After at least two years, O-TLIF and MI-TLIF can be considered equally efficacious, which simplifies surgeons' decision between both treatments, however, with the safety outcome measure postoperative complications per case and the perioperative outcome measures EBL and LOS in favor of MI-TLIF. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE I: Well conducted meta-analyses, systematic reviews, or RCTs with a low risk of bias.

Lateral decubitus single position anterior-posterior (AP) fusion shows equivalent results to minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion at one-year follow-up

PURPOSE

This study compares perioperative and 1-year outcomes of lateral decubitus single position circumferential fusion (L-SPS) versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF) for degenerative pathologies.

METHODS

Multicenter retrospective chart review of patients undergoing AP fusion with L-SPS or MIS TLIF. Demographics and clinical and radiographic outcomes were compared using independent samples t tests and chi-squared analyses with significance set at p < 0.05.

RESULTS

A total of 445 patients were included: 353 L-SPS, 92 MIS TLIF. The L-SPS cohort was significantly older with fewer diabetics and more levels fused. The L-SPS cohort had significantly shorter operative time, blood loss, radiation dosage, and length of stay compared to MIS TLIF. 1-year follow-up showed that the L-SPS cohort had higher rates of fusion (97.87% vs. 81.11%; p = 0.006) and lower rates of subsidence (6.38% vs. 38.46%; p < 0.001) compared with MIS TLIF. There were significantly fewer returns to the OR within 1 year for early mechanical failures with L-SPS (0.0% vs. 5.4%; p < 0.001). 1-year radiographic outcomes revealed that the L-SPS cohort had a greater LL (56.6 ± 12.5 vs. 51.1 ± 15.9; p = 0.004), smaller PI-LL mismatch (0.2 ± 13.0 vs. 5.5 ± 10.5; p = 0.004). There were no significant differences in amount of change in VAS scores between cohorts. Similar results were seen after propensity-matched analysis and sub-analysis of cases including L5-S1.

CONCLUSIONS

L-SPS improves perioperative outcomes and does not compromise clinical or radiographic results at 1-year follow-up compared with MIS TLIF. There may be decreased rates of early mechanical failure with L-SPS.

Minimally invasive versus open lumbar spinal fusion: a matched study investigating patient-reported and surgical outcomes

OBJECTIVE

With the expanding indications for and increasing popularity of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for lumbar spinal fusion, large-scale outcomes analysis to compare MIS approaches with open procedures is warranted.

METHODS

The authors queried the Quality Outcomes Database for patients who underwent elective lumbar fusion for degenerative spine disease. They performed optimal matching, at a 1:2 ratio between patients who underwent MIS and those who underwent open lumbar fusion, to create two highly homogeneous groups in terms of 33 baseline variables (including demographic characteristics, comorbidities, symptoms, patient-reported scores, indications, and operative details). The outcomes of interest were overall satisfaction, decrease in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and back and leg pain, as well as hospital length of stay (LOS), operative time, reoperations, and incidental durotomy rate. Satisfaction was defined as a score of 1 or 2 on the North American Spine Society scale. Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in ODI was defined as ≥ 30% decrease from baseline. Outcomes were assessed at the 3- and 12-month follow-up evaluations.

RESULTS

After the groups were matched, the MIS and open groups consisted of 1483 and 2966 patients, respectively. Patients who underwent MIS fusion had higher odds of satisfaction at 3 months (OR 1.4, p = 0.004); no difference was demonstrated at 12 months (OR 1.04, p = 0.67). Lumbar stenosis, single-level fusion, higher American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Classification System grade, and absence of spondylolisthesis were most prominently associated with higher odds of satisfaction with MIS compared with open surgery. Patients in the MIS group had slightly lower ODI scores at 3 months (mean difference 1.61, p = 0.006; MCID OR 1.14, p = 0.0495) and 12 months (mean difference 2.35, p < 0.001; MCID OR 1.29, p < 0.001). MIS was also associated with a greater decrease in leg and back pain at both follow-up time points. The two groups did not differ in operative time and incidental durotomy rate; however, LOS was shorter for the MIS group. Revision surgery at 12 months was less likely for patients who underwent MIS (4.1% vs 5.6%, p = 0.032).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients who underwent lumbar fusion for degenerative spinal disease, MIS was associated with higher odds of satisfaction at 3 months postoperatively. No difference was demonstrated at the 12-month follow-up. MIS maintained a small, yet consistent, superiority in decreasing ODI and back and leg pain, and MIS was associated with a lower reoperation rate.

Analysis of Risk Factors for Adjacent Segment Degeneration after Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Interbody Fusion at Lumbosacral Spine

Background. Adjacent segment degeneration (ASD) has been considered as a serious complication from changes in the biological stress pattern after spinal fusion. The sagittal balance significantly associated with lumbar loading is largely dependent on L5-S1 segment. However, the evidence indicating risk factors for radiological and symptomatic ASD after minimally invasive transforaminal interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) remains insufficient. Methods. This single-central retrospective study recruited patients with lumbosacral degeneration receiving MIS-TLIF at the L5-S1 level from January 2015 to December 2018. The targeted variables included demographic information, radiological indicators, surgery-related parameters, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) extracted from the electronic medical system by natural language processing. In these patients, a minimum of 3-year follow-up was done. After reviewing the preoperative and postoperative follow-up digital radiographs, patients were assigned to radiological ASD group (disc height narrowing ≥3 mm, progressive slipping ≥3 mm, angular motion >10°, and osteophyte formation >3 mm), symptomatic ASD group, and control group. We identified potential predictors for radiological and symptomatic ASD with the service of stepwise logistic regression analysis. Results. Among the 157 consecutive patients treated with MIS-TLIF in our department, 16 cases (10.2%) were diagnosed with radiological ASD at 3-year follow-up. The clinical evaluation did not reveal suspicious risk factors, but several significant differences were confirmed in radiological indicators. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed postoperative PI, postoperative DA, and ∆PI-LL in radiological ASD group were significantly different from those in control group. Nevertheless, for patients diagnosed with simultaneously radiological and symptomatic ASD, postoperative DA and postoperative PT as risk factors significantly affected the clinical outcome following MIS-TLIF. Conclusion. In this study, while approximately 10% of lumbosacral degenerations develop radiographic ASD, prognosis-related symptomatic ASD was shown not to be a frequent postoperative complication. Postoperative PI, postoperative DA, and mismatched PI-LL are risk factors for radiological ASD, and postoperative DA and postoperative PT are responsible for the occurrence of symptomatic ASD following MIS-TLIF. These radiological risk factors demonstrate that restoration of normal sagittal balance is an effective measure to optimize treatment strategies for secondary ASD prevention.

Clinical and Cost-Effectiveness of Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using Tritanium Posterolateral Cage (vs. Propensity-Matched Cohort of PEEK Cage)

Introduction

Surgical management of degenerative lumbar spine disorders is effective at improving patient pain, disability, and quality of life; however, obtaining a durable posterolateral fusion after decompression remains a challenge. Interbody fusion technologies are viable means of improving fusion rates in the lumbar spine, specifically various graft materials including autograft, structural allograft, titanium, and polyether ether ketone. This study assesses the effectiveness of Tritanium posterolateral cage in the treatment of degenerative disk disease.

Methods

Nearest-neighbor 1:1 matched control transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with PEEK vs. Tritanium posterior lumbar (PL) cage interbody fusion patients were identified using propensity scoring from patients that underwent elective surgery for degenerative disk diseases. Line graphs were generated to compare the trajectories of improvement in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from baseline to 3 and 12 months postoperatively. The nominal data were compared via the χ² test, while the continuous data were compared via Student's t-test.

Results

The two groups had no difference regarding either the 3- or 12-month Euro-Qol-5D (EQ-5D), numeric rating scale (NRS) leg pain, and NRS back pain; however, the Tritanium interbody cage group had better Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores compared to the control group of the PEEK interbody cage at both 3 and 12 months (p=0.013 and 0.048).

Conclusions

Our results indicate the Tritanium cage is an effective alternative to the previously used PEEK cage in terms of PROs, surgical safety, and radiological parameters of surgical success. The Tritanium cohort showed better ODI scores, higher fusion rates, lower subsidence, and lower indirect costs associated with surgical management, when compared to the propensity-matched PEEK cohort.

Effects and Safety of Lumbar Fusion Techniques in Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

STUDY DESIGN

Network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVES

Lumbar spondylolisthesis is a common indication for spinal fusion. Lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) is popular method to achieve arthrodesis, but previous syntheses usually used head-to-head comparison of 2 surgical methods, and no of them pooled analysis with high-quality. This network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was carried out to simultaneously compare fusion techniques in the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis.

METHODS

Three databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on this topic. After critical appraisal, fusion rate, overall adverse events, operative time, Oswestry Disability Index, and pain were extracted for analysis. We conduced network meta-analysis using contrast-based method. Primary outcomes were reported as risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

Fifteen RCTs (n = 992) met our eligibility criteria. The RCTs treated patients posterolateral fusion (PLF), posterior LIF (PLIF), transforaminal LIF (TLIF), minimally invasive (MIS) TLIF, extreme lateral LIF (XLIF), and circumferential fusion. The pooled estimate showed that circumferential fusion led to significantly higher fusion rate than PLF (RR = 2.15, 95%CI:1.41-3.28), PLIF (RR = 2.11, 95%CI:1.38-3.22), TLIF (RR = 2.13, 95%CI:1.39-3.27), MIS-TLIF (RR = 2.13, 95%CI:1.35-3.35), and XLIF (RR = 2.01, 95%CI: 1.25-3.22). Moreover, circumferential fusion exhibited the best balance in probability between fusion rate and adverse event rate. No evidence showed inconsistency or small-study effect in the results.

CONCLUSIONS

Collectively, circumferential fusion might be worth to be recommended because it exhibits the best balance between fusion rate and overall adverse event. PLF is still an inferior procedure and requires shorter operative time.

Posterior Oblique Square Decompression with a Three-Step Wanding Technique in Tubular Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Technical Report and Mid-Long-Term Clinical Outcomes

Although minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) is the most common procedure in minimally invasive spine stabilization (MISt), details of the technique remain unclear. This technical report shows the mid-long-term clinical outcomes in patients who underwent posterior oblique square decompression (POSDe) with the three-step wanding technique of tubular MIS-TLIF for degenerative lumbar disease. Tubular MIS-TLIF (POSDe) was performed on 50 patients (males, 19; age, 69.2 ± 9.6 years), and traditional open surgery was performed (OS) on 27 (males, 4; age, 67.9 ± 6.6 years). We evaluated the clinical outcomes using the Visual Analog Scale for back pain, Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) scores, and JOA Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire. We also assessed the fusion rate using the Bridwell grading system with computed tomography or plain radiography for at least 2 years postoperatively. Although there was no significant difference in the improvement rate of JOA scores between the two groups, the mean operation time and blood loss were significantly lower with MIS-TLIF than with OS. In the tubular MIS-TLIF group, there were no cases of deep wound infection; four cases had a pseudarthrosis, two had dural injury, and three had cage retropulsion. We revealed good clinical outcomes in patients who underwent POSDe.

Intraoperative neuromonitoring during surgery for lumbar stenosis

The indications for neuromonitoring during lumbar stenosis surgery are defined by the risks associated with patient positioning, the approach, decompression of neural elements, deformity correction, and instrument implantation. The routine use of EMG and SEP alone during lumbar stenosis surgery is no longer supported by the literature. Lateral approach neuromonitoring with EMG only is also suspect. Lumbar stenosis patients often present with multiple co-morbidities which put them at risk during routine pre-surgical positioning. Frequently encountered morbid obesity and/or diabetes mellitus may play a role in monitorable and preventable brachial plexopathy after "superman" positioning or femoral neuropathy from groin pressure after prone positioning, for example. Deformity correction in lumbar stenosis surgery often demands advanced implementation of multiple neuromonitoring modalities: EMG, SEP, and MEP. Because the bulbocavernosus reflex detects the function of the conus medullaris and sacral somato afferent/efferent fibers of the cauda equina, it may also be recorded. The recommendation to record pedicle screw thresholds has become more nuanced as surgeon dependence on 3D imaging, navigation, and robotics has increased. Neuromonitoring in lumbar stenosis surgery has been subject mainly to uncontrolled case series; prospective cohort trials are also needed.

Radiographic and Patient-Reported Outcomes of Lordotic Versus Non-lordotic Static Interbody Devices in Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Longitudinal Comparative Cohort Study

Introduction Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) is increasingly used to treat lumbar degenerative pathology. Its effect on sagittal parameters remains controversial. Static and expandable lordotic interbody devices (cages) were developed to improve segmental and overall lumbar lordosis. This study aimed to compare the radiographic and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) between static lordotic and non-lordotic titanium cages in patients undergoing 1-2 level MI-TLIF for degenerative conditions.  Methods We reviewed consecutive eligible patients who underwent 1-2 level MI-TLIF (7/2017-11/2019) at a single institution by multiple surgeons. Standing X-rays and PROs were collected at preoperative, 1-month, and 6-month postoperative intervals. Using univariate analyses, we compared the two cohorts regarding confounders, radiographic parameters, and proportions of patients reaching minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for PROs. Results One-hundred-twenty-five patients were reviewed. Forty-seven had lordotic and seventy-eight non-lordotic cages. The lordotic cohort was significantly younger than the non-lordotic (55.9 years vs. 60.7 years, p= 0.042). The baseline radiographic parameters were not significantly different between cohorts. At the preoperative-6-month interval, the lordotic cohort had significant improvement in lumbar lordosis versus non-lordotic cohort (2.95° ± 7.2° vs. -0.3° ± 7.1°, p=0.024). Both cohorts showed improvement in segmental lordosis, anterior and posterior interspace height, and low subsidence grade with no significant difference between cohorts at all intervals. Overall, 69.1-83.8% of patients achieved MCID in all PROs with no significant difference between cohorts. Conclusions The use of a static lordotic titanium cage in 1-2 level MI-TLIF did not result in significantly different radiographic improvements or PROs compared with a non-lordotic cage.

Microendoscopic Decompression for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Associated with Adjacent Segment Disease following Lumbar Fusion Surgery: 5-year Follow-up of a Retrospective Case Series

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

 Surgical treatment options for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) based on adjacent segment disease (ASD) after spinal fusion typically involve decompression, with or without fusion, of the adjacent segment. The clinical benefits of microendoscopic decompression for LSS based on ASD have not yet been fully elucidated. We aimed to investigate the clinical results of microendoscopic spinal decompression surgery for LSS based on ASD.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

 From 2011 to 2014, consecutive patients who underwent microendoscopic spinal decompression without fusion for LSS based on ASD were enrolled. Data of 32 patients (17 men and 15 women, with a mean age of 70.5 years) were reviewed. Japanese Orthopaedic Association score and low back pain/leg pain visual analog scale score were utilized to measure neurologic and axial pain outcomes, respectively. Additionally, after the surgeries, we analyzed the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computed tomography (CT) scans, or radiographs to identify any new instabilities of the decompressed segments or progression of ASD adjacent to the decompressed segments.

RESULTS

 The Japanese Orthopaedic Association recovery rate at the 5-year postoperative visit was 49.2%. The visual analog scale scores for low back pain and leg pain were significantly improved. The minimum clinically important difference for leg pain (decrease by ≥24 mm) and clinically important difference for low back pain (decrease by ≥38 mm) were achieved in 84% (27/32) and 72% (23/32) of cases, respectively. Regarding new instability after microendoscopic decompression, no cases had apparent spinal instability at the decompression segment and adjacent segment to the decompressed segment.

CONCLUSIONS

 Microendoscopic spinal decompression is an effective treatment alternative for patients with LSS caused by ASD. The ability to perform neural decompression while maintaining key stabilizing structures minimizes subsequent clinical instability. The substantial clinical and economic benefits of this approach may make it a favorable alternative to performing concurrent fusion in many patients.

Spinal versus general anesthesia for minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: implications on operating room time, pain, and ambulation

OBJECTIVE

There has been increasing interest in the use of spinal anesthesia (SA) for spine surgery, especially within Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols. Despite the wide adoption of SA by the orthopedic practices, it has not gained wide acceptance in lumbar spine surgery. Studies investigating SA versus general anesthesia (GA) in lumbar laminectomy and discectomy have found that SA reduces perioperative costs and leads to a reduction in analgesic use, as well as to shorter anesthesia and surgery time. The aim of this retrospective, case-control study was to compare the perioperative outcomes of patients who underwent minimally invasive surgery (MIS)-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) after administration of SA with those who underwent MIS-TLIF under GA.

METHODS

Overall, 40 consecutive patients who underwent MIS-TLIF by a single surgeon were analyzed; 20 patients received SA and 20 patients received GA. Procedure time, intraoperative adverse events, postoperative adverse events, postoperative length of stay, 3-hour postanesthesia care unit (PACU) numeric rating scale (NRS) pain score, opioid medication, and time to first ambulation were collected for each patient.

RESULTS

The two groups were homogeneous for clinical characteristics. A decrease in total operating room (OR) time was found for patients who underwent MIS-TLIF after administration of SA, with a mean OR time of 156.5 ± 18.9 minutes versus 213.6 ± 47.4 minutes for patients who underwent MIS-TLIF under GA (p < 0.0001), a reduction of 27%. A decrease in total procedure time was also observed for SA versus GA (122 ± 16.7 minutes vs 175.2 ± 10 minutes; p < 0.0001). No significant differences were found in intraoperative and postoperative adverse events. There was a difference in the mean maximum NRS pain score during the first 3 hours in the PACU as patients who received SA reported a lower pain score compared with those who received GA (4.8 ± 3.5 vs 7.3 ± 2.7; p = 0.018). No significant difference was observed in morphine equivalents received by the two groups. A difference was also observed in the mean overall NRS pain score, with 2.4 ± 2.1 for the SA group versus 4.9 ± 2.3 for the GA group (p = 0.001). Patients who received SA had a shorter time to first ambulation compared with those who received GA (385.8 ± 353.8 minutes vs 855.9 ± 337.4 minutes; p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study have pointed to some important observations in this patient population. SA offers unique advantages in comparison with GA for performing MIS-TLIF, including reduced OR time and postoperative pain, and faster postoperative mobilization.

More Than 1 in 3 Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain Continue to Use Opioids Long-term After Spinal Fusion: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

A common expectation for patients after elective spine surgery is that the procedure will result in pain reduction and minimize the need for pain medication. Most studies report changes in pain and function after spine surgery, but few report the extent of opioid use after surgery. This systematic review aims to identify the rates of opioid use after lumbar spine fusion.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Ovid Medline were searched to identify studies published between January 1, 2005 and June 30, 2020 that assessed the effectiveness of lumbar fusion for the management of low back pain.

RESULTS

Of 6872 abstracts initially identified, 329 studies met the final inclusion criteria, and only 32 (9.7%) reported any postoperative opioid use. Long-term opioid use after surgery persists for more than 1 in 3 patients with usage ranging from 6 to 85.9% and a pooled mean of 35.0% based on data from 21 studies (6.4% of all lumbar fusion studies).

DISCUSSION

Overall, opioid use is not reported in the majority of lumbar fusion trials. Patients may expect a reduced need for opioid-based pain management after surgery, but the limited data available suggests long-term use is common. Lack of consistent reporting of these outcomes limits definitive conclusions regarding the efficacy of spinal fusion for reducing long-term opioid. Patient decisions about undergoing surgery may be altered if they had realistic expectations about rates of postsurgical opioid use. Spine surgery trials should track opioid utilization out to a minimum of 6 months after surgery as a core outcome.

Long-term clinical outcome of minimally invasive versus open single-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar diseases: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Minimally invasive surgical transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) was developed in addition to open-TLIF to minimize iatrogenic soft-tissue damage. A potential disadvantage of MIS-TLIF is inadequate visualization, which may lead to incomplete neural decompression and a less robust arthrodesis. This may cause long-term problems and result in decreased patient satisfaction.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the long-term clinical outcome, measured by patient-reported outcomes (PROMs), of patients with degenerative lumbar diseases treated with single-level TLIF (open vs. minimally invasive) with a minimum follow-up of 2-years.

STUDY DESIGN

Meta-analysis.

METHODS

The systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. Relevant studies were identified from Pubmed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, and CENTRAL from the date of inception to August 2019. The inclusion criteria were (1) longitudinal comparative studies of MIS-TLIF versus open-TLIF approach for degenerative spine disease (2) outcomes reported as PROMs, (3) minimum follow-up of 2-years.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies were included in the analysis. In total, 1,321 patients were included (660 MIS-TLIF& 661 open-TLIF). The following PROMS were analyzed: EQ-5D, SF, ODI, and VAS. Both techniques resulted in significant improvement in PROM, which remained significant at 2-years follow-up. However, no significant differences were found in all PROMs at 2-years follow-up. Both treatments resulted in a high rate of spinal fusion (80.5% vs. 91.1%; p=.29) and low rate of reoperation (3.0% vs. 2.4%; p=.50) or adjacent segment disease (12.6% vs. 12.40%; p=.50).

CONCLUSIONS

MIS-TLIF and open-TLIF have comparable long-term clinical outscomes. Both operations can significantly reduce pain and positively improve PROMs. No significant differences were found between both treatments in clinical outcomes at a follow-up of minimal 2-years. Therefore, MIS-TLIF seems to be an effective and safe alternative to traditional open-TLIF in the long-term.

Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with expandable articulating interbody spacers significantly improves radiographic outcomes compared to static interbody spacers

Background

The goal of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI TLIF) is to restore and maintain disc height and lordosis until arthrodesis occurs, while minimizing muscle disruption and improving recovery time. The purpose of this study was to compare the radiographic outcomes in patients treated with an articulating expandable spacer in MI TLIF to more traditional static spacers.

Methods

This was a multi-site, multi-surgeon, Institutional Review Board-exempt, retrospective clinical study from a prospectively collected database. It included 48 patients with a diagnosis of degenerative disc disease (DDD) at one level from L2 to S1 with or without Grade 1 spondylolisthesis who underwent MI TLIF using either an articulating expandable or static interbody spacer. Twenty-seven patients were in the banana-shaped articulating expandable interbody spacer (ALTERA^®, Globus Medical, Inc., Audubon, PA, USA) group, while 21 patients were in the static interbody spacer group. Both groups had supplemental posterior pedicle screw and rod fixation. Radiographic records were assessed for disc height, neuroforaminal height, and lordosis at baseline, 3 and 6 months, and final follow-up.

Results

The articulating expandable spacer group displayed significantly greater improvement in anterior disc height from baseline compared to the static spacer group at 6 weeks, 3 and 6 months, and final follow-up by averages of 2.6 mm (79%), 2.8 mm (92%), 3.4 mm (105%), and 3.8 mm (139%), respectively (P<0.05). Mean increases in posterior disc height were significantly greater in the expandable group compared to the static group by 1.2 mm (65%) and 1.7 mm (104%) at 6 months and final follow-up, respectively (P<0.05). Articulating expandable spacers produced significantly greater average improvement by 4.0 mm in neuroforaminal height from baseline to final follow-up compared to static spacers (P<0.05). Increases in intervertebral angle from baseline were significantly greater in the expandable group than in the static group at 3 and 6 months, and final follow-up by averages of 2.5°, 2.8°, and 3.1°, respectively (P<0.05). The articulating expandable spacer group resulted in significantly greater improvements in lumbar lordosis from baseline to 3 and 6 months than the static spacer group by 4.4° and 4.0°, respectively (P<0.05).

Conclusions

MI TLIF with articulating expandable interbody spacers provides significant restoration and maintenance of disc height, neuroforaminal height, and lordosis compared to static spacers in this comparative cohort. Long-term clinical outcomes are needed to correlate with these radiographic improvements.

Comparison of Minimally Invasive Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion, Minimally Invasive Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion, and Open Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion in the Treatment of Single-Level Spondylolisthesis of L4-L5

OBJECTIVE

To compare the outcomes of minimally invasive lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) with minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and conventional open posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) for treating single-level spondylolisthesis at L4-L5.

METHODS

The patients underwent minimally invasive LLIF (n = 18), minimally invasive TLIF (n = 17), and conventional open PLIF (n = 20) for spondylolisthesis at L4-L5. Reduction of slippage, improvement in segmental lordosis, and restoration of foraminal height were measured. Perioperative parameters such as blood loss and operation time and clinical outcomes such as visual analog scale score and Oswestry Disability Index were compared.

RESULTS

Compared with the open PLIF group, the minimally invasive LLIF group showed greater restoration of mean foraminal height, significantly smaller mean intraoperative estimated blood loss, and less mean hemoglobin reduction on the third day postoperatively. Compared with the minimally invasive TLIF group, the minimally invasive LLIF group showed greater restoration of mean segmental lordosis. The minimally invasive LLIF group showed a significantly shorter mean time to start walking after surgery compared with the conventional open PLIF and minimally invasive TLIF groups. However, compared with the minimally invasive TLIF group, the minimally invasive LLIF group showed a significantly longer mean operating time. Clinical outcomes were not statistically different among the 3 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In the treatment of spondylolisthesis of L4-L5, minimally invasive LLIF provided an effective surgical alternative to minimally invasive TLIF or conventional open PLIF, with the advantages of less blood loss, the faster start of postoperative walking, and comparable improvement in radiologic parameters.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

A Prospective Randomized Study of the Safety and Efficacy of Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Versus Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion in the Treatment of Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: A Cost utility from a Lower-middle-income Country Perspective and Review of Literature

BACKGROUND: The safety and efficacy of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in lumbar spondylolisthesis have not been validated in many prospective randomized trials. AIM: We aimed to validate the safety and efficacy of TLIF and PLIF surgery in lumbar spondylolisthesis using the clinical, radiographic, and cost-utility outcomes. METHODS: The data of surgically treated single-level spondylolisthesis patients were randomized prospectively into two groups. The groups were compared regarding demographics, perioperative complications, hospital stay, total expenditure, fusion rate, and clinical outcomes (visual analog scale, Oswestry disability index, Zurich claudication scale, and Odom’s criteria). A review of literature was done to compare the outcomes with the ones from higher-income nations. RESULTS: Thirty-three patients underwent prospective randomization. The improvement in the clinical outcomes at 12-month follow-up showed improvement in the TLIF group more than the PLIF group but with no significant difference. The mean operative time was significantly longer in the PLIF (p < 0.05), also, the blood loss was significantly less in the TLIF (p < 0.001). The complications frequency did not show any statistical significance between both groups and no significant difference in the patient’s post-operative patient satisfaction (p = 0.6). The mean hospital stay was non-significantly longer in the PLIF (p = 0.7). At 12-month follow-up, 93.3% of the TLIF patients were fused versus 86.7% of the PLIF (p = 0.5). The total cost of the TLIF was significantly less (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Both PLIF and TLIF could achieve similar fusion rates and clinical satisfaction in the management of lumbar spondylolisthesis. The TLIF group was significantly better in terms of financial burden, operative time, and blood loss.

Lifetime incremental cost-utility ratios for minimally invasive surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis relative to failed medical management compared with total hip and knee arthroplasty for osteoarthritis

Background:

The objective of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for patients with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS) relative to failed medical management with the cost-effectiveness of hip and knee arthroplasty for matched cohorts of patients with osteoarthritis.

Methods:

A cohort of patients with DLS undergoing MIS procedures with decompression alone or decompression and instrumented fusion between 2008 and 2014 was matched to cohorts of patients with hip osteoarthritis (OA) and knee OA undergoing total joint replacement. Incremental cost–utility ratios (ICURs) were calculated from the perspective of the Ontario Ministry of Health, using prospectively collected Short Form–6 Dimension utility data. Costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were discounted at 3% and sensitivity analyses were performed.

Results:

Sixty-six patients met the inclusion criteria for the DLS cohort (n = 35 for decompression alone), with a minimum follow-up time of 1 year (mean 1.7 yr). The mean age of patients in the DLS cohort was 64.76 years, and 45 patients (68.2%) were female. For each cohort, utility scores improved from baseline to follow-up and the magnitude of the gain did not differ by group. Lifetime ICURs comparing surgical with nonsurgical care were Can$7946/QALY, Can$7104/QALY and Can$5098/QALY for the DLS, knee OA and hip OA cohorts, respectively. Subgroup analysis yielded an increased ICUR for the patients with DLS who underwent decompression and fusion (Can$9870/QALY) compared with that for the patients with DLS who underwent decompression alone (Can$5045/QALY). The rank order of the ICURs by group did not change with deterministic or probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

Conclusion:

Lifetime ICURs for MIS procedures for DLS are similar to those for total joint replacement. Future research should adopt a societal perspective and potentially capture further economic benefits of MIS procedures.

Clinical and Radiographic Comparison Between Open Versus Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion With Bilateral Facetectomies

STUDY DESIGN

Age- and sex-matched cohort study.

OBJECTIVES

To compare outcomes after open versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) with bilateral facetectomies.

METHODS

We retrospectively compared patients who underwent single- or 2-level MIS-TLIF with an age- and sex-matched open-TLIF cohort. Surgical data was collected for operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), and drain use. Clinical outcomes included the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), length of stay (LOS), complications, and reoperations. Lumbar radiographs were measured for changes in global lumbar lordosis (LL) and segmental lordosis (SL).

RESULTS

Between 2016 and 2020, 38 MIS-TLIF patients were compared with 38 open-TLIF patients. No subfascial drain was used in the MIS-TLIF group (P < .001). The MIS-TLIF group had longer operative time (310.8 vs 276.5 minutes; P = .046) but less EBL (282.4 vs 420.8 mL; P = .007). LOS (P = .15), complication rates (P = .50), and revision rates (P = .17) were equivalent. VAS and ODI improved but did not differ between groups. In the open-TLIF group, LL and SL were restored or improved in 81.6% and 86.9% of cases, respectively. In the MIS-TLIF group, LL and SL were restored or improved in 86.8% and 97.4% of cases, respectively. There were no differences in changes in LL and SL between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with the age- and sex-matched open-TLIF cohort, patients undergoing MIS-TLIF had reduced EBL and subfascial drain use but increased operative time. There were no differences in complications, reoperations, or LOS. Both groups demonstrated improvement in VAS and ODI. MIS-TLIF with bilateral facetectomies provided equivalent improvements in global and segmental LL.

A comparative study of L4-L5-S1 and L5-S1 vertebral fusion in high-grade L5-S1 spondylolisthesis

Introduction:

One of the most common types of spinal diseases is spondylolisthesis, which in advanced cases requires surgical intervention. This study aimed to compare the results of L4-L5-S1 and L5-S1 vertebral fusion treatment in high-grade L5-S1 spondylolisthesis.

Methods:

A study design that randomized controlled trial. A total of 70 consecutive patients who underwent surgery for the treatment of spondylolisthesis at Al-Zahra Hospital in Isfahan, Iran, were evaluated from July 2020 to February 2021 (35 patients underwent L4-L5-S1 and 35 received L5-S1 vertebral fusion treatment). The radicular and low back pain (LBP) intensity (Vanguard Australian Shares), blood loss, wound infection, reduction, and quality of life (SF-12 scores) were quantified before the surgery, 1, 3, and 6 months after surgery in two groups.

Results:

Patients involved in the two groups had similar baseline demographic characteristics. The percent slip in L4-L5-S1 and L5-S1 group, respectively, postoperative 81.11% and 57.89%, P = 0.0001. Intraoperative blood loss and postoperative were higher in the L4-L5-S1 group when compared to the L5-S1 group (P < 0.05). The wound infection rate of the L4-L5-S1 group was similar to that of the L5-S1 group (8.6% vs. 2.9%, P = 0.303). There was no difference in radicular and LBP intensity, SF-12 scores among patients with L4-L5-S1 and L5-S1 groups (P < 0.05).

Conclusion:

Both L4-L5-S1 and L5-S1 were equally beneficial in improving short-term functional outcomes for patients with high grade L5-S1 spondylolisthesis. However, L4-L5-S1 was associated with statistically significant higher incidences of blood loss, but it was accompanied by a better reduction. Therefore, caution should be exercised when considering L4-L5-S1.

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

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

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

PURPOSE

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

STUDY DESIGN

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

STUDY SAMPLE

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

OUTCOME MEASURES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Safety of Lumbar Interbody Fusion Procedures for Degenerative Disc Disease: A Systematic Review With Network Meta-Analysis of Prospective Studies

STUDY DESIGN

A network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES

Lumbar degenerative disc disease (LDDD) is an important issue in aging population, for which lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) is a feasible management in cases refractory to conservative therapy. There are various techniques available to perform LIF, including posterior (PLIF), transforaminal (TLIF), and anterior (ALIF) approaches. However, the comparative safety profile of these procedures remains controversial. Our study aimed to evaluate comparative adverse events of the LIF procedures in patients with LDDD.

METHODS

We searched 5 databases for relevant prospective cohort studies and randomized clinical trials. After quality assessments, we extracted neural, spinal, vascular, and wound events for conducting contrast-based network meta-analysis. Results were reported in risk ratio (RR), 95% confidence interval (CI), and surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA).

RESULTS

We identified 14 studies involving 921 participants with LDDD. Pooled result showed that open PLIF (OPLIF) leads to significantly higher overall adverse event rate than does open TLIF (OTLIF; RR = 3.43, 95% CI = 1.21-9.73). OTLIF confers the highest SUCRA in neural (78.7) and spinal (80.8) event rates. Minimally invasive TLIF has the highest SUCRA in vascular event (84.2), and minimally invasive PLIF has the highest SUCRA in wound event (88.1). No inconsistency or publication bias was detected in the results.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on our results, perhaps OPLIF should be avoided in the management of LDDD due to the inferiority of overall complications. Specifically, TLIF seems to have the safest profile in terms of neural, spinal, and vascular events. Nevertheless, shared decision making is still mandatory when choosing the proper LIF procedure for patients with LDDD in clinical practice.

Perioperative Complications of Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (MI-TLIF): 10 Years of Experience With MI-TLIF

STUDY DESIGN

A prospective study.

OBJECTIVES

We present a largest study until date performed over a period of 10 years assessing the perioperative complications. The primary aim of this study was to review the incidence of perioperative complications of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) in single-level lumbar degenerative diseases.

METHODS

A prospective study performed over a period of 10 years involving 560 patients who underwent single-level lumbar MI-TLIF. Perioperative clinical and radiological parameters, postoperative complications, and satisfactory outcomes in the form of Wang's criteria were evaluated. All patients were scrutinized into 5 different categories based on the descriptive classification for perioperative complications suggested by the authors.

RESULTS

The mean age was 61.8 ± 12.7 years and male to female ratio was 0.8:1. The overall incidence of the perioperative complication was 25.5%. In all, 19.64% patients developed single complication, 4.64% patients were with 2 complications, and 1.25% patients developed 3 complications from the described categories. A total of 16.78% patients developed early (<6 months postsurgery) and 8.75% patients developed late (>6 months postsurgery) complications.

CONCLUSION

This study showed 25.5% incidence of perioperative complications in MI-TLIF for degenerative lumbar disease over a period of 10 years with a higher incidence rate during the initial 3 years of practice. The described classification for perioperative complications is helpful to record, to evaluate and to understand the etiology based on its duration of occurrence in the perioperative period. MI-TLIF is an effective procedure with substantial clinical benefits in the form of excellent to good clinical-radiological outcomes.